Definitions of Political Labels

[Revoltingest]

Forget about the terms for a second. They clearly aren't helping you much.
You can say their system is impossible, but let's not pretend the theory is not there.

Spoiler: Explanation

Note: I disagree with the views expressed in this video regarding state socialism.



History section.
Specific Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

As for Rojava and Zapatistas. I'm talking about the theory behind them and how they are very different from your definitions and how you would categorize them, nothing to do with economies which are observable.

Unacceptable analogy time.....
If a group believed that there is a rational number which is the square root of (-e),
then the group of people could exist, but what they believe in could not.
It is in this sense that I say they do not exist.

Alright.


Why would he not discuss with the other workers to create better furniture? There would be large diversity in production due to workers self management. If bob want's better furniture he should talk to the people making them.

I'm not addressing what Bob should do.
I'm considering all the possible reasonable things Enid might want to do.
She wants to make the style of furniture she wants using particular techniques & tools.
If a prospective worker disagrees, Enid would tell'm to take a hike.
Enid wants to pay a wage, not share profits.
Would socialism allow this independence?
It wouldn't happen in N Korea, Cuba, the old USSR, the old PRC.

Sounds fine to me.


Yeah if Enid wants to make the furniture they can and if Bob wants to rebuild engines he can.


As long as there is no exploitation of other workers or privatized control over the means of production used to create antagonism of capital and wage exploitation. Meaning nothing is wrong with this; unless you allow another to use a productive tool you control at a cost. Any capital must be controlled by workers.


If Bob wants to rebuild car engines he can and if Enid wants to make furniture they can. What's the issue?


The government must have the power to shut counter-revolutionaries down. There's nothing wrong with selling products one makes in and of itself.

I'm proposing precisely Enid's & Bob's control over the means of production.

 

[Quagmire]

For visual reference:


Conservative :

Liberal:

Neo-Con:

Libertarian:

Socialist:

Capitalist:


Communist:

Fascist:

 

[Revoltingest]

Alright, but you can surely acknowledge there is not an oxymoron like you claimed, no?

In the interest of post election peace, I'll back off on "oxymoron".......today.

Bringing back economic exploitation isn't reasonable .

All systems wherein someone does something for someone else involve exploitation.
The only question is which is the best.
I prefer capitalism because each person can do what they want & are able....
Run a store....build an empire...or just work for a wage, with little responsibility.
Anyone can quit what they do for greener pastures elsewhere.

and she can go for that using personal property or the socially controlled MoP.

But when her personal property becomes the means of production, then she cannot own it.

Why would anyone work under a capitalist once socialism had taken root?

To escape oppression.
I know people who did exactly that.....leaving China & the USSR.

If they did they would merely get less than the value of what they produced instead of the control over what they produced.

Socialism results in lower efficiency, so to get a share of what's produced is less than wages under capitalism.

Sounds quite counter intuitive to me, why would a worker ever work against their best interest like this?

Workers don't always have the same interests as those assigned to them by a socialist state.

I doubt the idea such a business opportunity would emerge.

Business opportunities do emerge even under socialism.
The USSR was famous for its underground (& illegal) capitalist economy.

Hypothetically it does. What does this change? The libsoc revolutionaries and unions struck down the old capitalist society, they would group up and tear down this new capitalist formation. No nation state required.

A large unorganized state is a political & military impossibility because of instability.

There is one way you could create your socialist utopia.....
Build one within a capitalism fueled country which already exists, eg, Canuckistan, USA.
This way, you'd have automatic defense against foreign invaders & criminal attacks.
Within your own voluntary community, you could set up worker run cooperatives, &
share all the fruits of everyone's labor according to need.

A problem....
Of all the people I've personally known who believe in socialism or communism,
not one has ever wanted to do this. A question is raised.....if they don't want to
do this with willing participants, then why impose it upon the unwilling?

 

[Revoltingest]

Particularly the 3rd world sweatshop workers the capitalist system is built upon.

This is a good example to illustrate the situation where there's the freedom to do something different, & compelling reasons to not exercise it. In a very poor economically backward country, they've limited choices. No matter what their system, hard work would be necessary just to survive. We saw this in communist China, for example. (People ate anything they could, including each other.) Conditions improve with the economy, & nothing beats capitalism for achieving progress.

False. She cannot own it when she allows another worker to work for her profit.

I think you just disproved your "false" claim.

I think you'll find most socialists aren't advocating the state assigning people to work.

This has a tendency to happen though, eg, China again.
This is a likely consequence of the extremely authoritarian state which accompanies socialism.

The USSR was also famous for it's red capitalism. I think you'll find many socialists don't view the USSR as socialist and of those who do still recognise issues with it.

"Capitalism" in the USSR wasn't really capitalism, because the state owned everything.
It would be better called "market socialism".
This also illlustrates the dysfunction of RF's definition of "capitalism", which includes socialism of the Soviet style.

You can't have a separate mode of production within another.

Sure you could.
It would have to be entirely voluntary to be legal.
There are no laws preventing a group from forming a communist system within Americastan.
They could make their own goods with commonly owned means, & pay workers according to need.
The only problem is getting people to take the initiative, & to sign up.

History has shown the opposite. The capitalist class and militaries would get involved if such an experiment managed to occur.

There were times in the US when forming a communist organization would be squashed by the feds.
But these days, you could manage it, & perhaps even get many nods of approval.
Why not try?
If you set a positive example, you gain converts.
Could this be the bloodless revolution to the communist utopia?

Socialism=/=Cooperatives.
This would also not beat capitalism's Ill's.

But if you can achieve socialism on a local scale by cooperatives, why not try it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly, and capitalists perpetuate backwards and poor countries and is reliant on them for it's function.
It's easy to look at America and Europe as their own independent capitalist systems but frankly that's leaving out most of the equation.

Third world countries are also benefitting.....those which decide to, eg, India.
But I'm addressing capitalism as a system within a country. Looking at
examples of those & socialist countries around the world, capitalism wins.

The system in Communist China, doesn't represent the majority of communist's theories and is hardly a fair judgement of the conditions in China at the time.

Fair?
This is a common complaint in capitalist v socialist comparisons.
There are always reasons given why socialism fails.
But the fundamental problem is that there are always reasons why socialism fails.
Old joke.....
There are only 4 problems with Soviet agriculture....
Spring, summer, fall & winter

Debatable. Capitalism is efficient when it's goals are profitable to pursue. Most causes I care about are not deemed so.

If someone wants to pursue something unprofitable, this raises the question....
If the benefit isn't worth the price, then why do it?
We could discuss examples, lest things get inscrutable.

So let's not have an extremely authoritarian state accompanying "socialism".
Sounds fine to me.

That sounds fine to me too....so long as I don't live in it.
But I look at real world system responses to economic structures.
Capitalism very often works out well.
Socialism always looks bad.

Of course there are no legal laws preventing it. That's because it cannot be done. You cannot have one mode of production within another.

Why not?
Small communes have existed.
Government doesn't prevent them.
And to the extent they don't engage in commerce with outsiders, they're largely immune from paying income taxes.

How would this sustain itself? Most businesses fail while being cutthroat to their workers.

If socialism/communism is so inefficient that they can't compete with private companies,
then they could subsidize their own manufactured or farmed products or to generate income.
If this sounds like too much work, then it sure makes socialism sound inefficient.

Because my definition of communism is not a cooperative because I have at least a basic understanding of communist theory.

However a group achieves communism, so long as they do, it would be successful.
If they don't conform to arcane historical versions, I'm OK with that.

Workers management within a capitalist enterprise still forces workers to make decisions to cut pay and fire people. They are still competing against each other. Cooperatives have to be viable in a market under capitalism. The vast majority of the time they are not. Cooperatives cost a lot of money to start up too. Worker's self management is not "achieving socialism" on a local scale, by any definition put forward by traditional socialists. I'm all for people running cooperatives, but let's not mistake them for socialism.

All they need do is have the workers own the means of production.
Voila! You have socialism.

“Co-operatives, especially co-operatives in the field of production, constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialized production within capitalist exchange.” -Rosa Luxemburg

“in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital—that is, pitiless exploitation—becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise... The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur—a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving."

Does that clarify anything?

This last part doesn't really clarify. It presumes that the workers must assume the role of a conventional capitalist manager, eg, maximizing profits for a given level of risk. They can do something different....instead of firing workers to save money, everyone can divide up the profits among all the retained workers. They'd make less than if they fired some, but socialism is not about making as much money as possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a pretty unfair comparison, but alright. May as well start judging countries based on how the quality of life in the rich suburbs are.

It's much more meaningful to look at the entire country.

I don't know, global warming?
Dealing with poverty?

Those things can be handled with regulation & the welfare state.
No need to go socialist at all.

If you are going to continually insist cooperatives are socialism despite the contrary being true there is nothing you are going to gain from this conversation.

I don't equate cooperatives with socialism.
But groups can use cooperatives to achieve socialism.

"Both capitalism and socialism refer to economic systems which exist beyond the particular organization of any particular enterprise. If all so-called "capitalist companies" were to somehow be replaced by cooperatives, that would not be enough to end capitalism."

I'm proposing the opposite of ending capitalism, ie, that socialism can exist as a subsystem within a larger capitalist economy.

If you can't win the war to end capitalism, at least you can
have a partial victory by having small scale success.
Is it really necessary to totally defeat & eliminate us?
Why not strive for coexistence?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's much more meaningful to look at the global capitalist system.

We can look at that too.
But be sure to compare it to socialist systems, eg, N Korea, Cuba.

Wait so you admit that poverty and environmental issues are unprofitable?

They're situations which are handled independently from profitmaking ventures.
Government serves purposes which aren't handled by business.
Is this not commonly understood by all?

Did you not just say: "If someone wants to pursue something unprofitable, this raises the question....
If the benefit isn't worth the price, then why do it?"

I only said that the question should be asked.
Sometimes the answer would be, "Not worth making buggy whips.".
Other times the answer would be, "Provide medicine to prevent the pandemic."
Policy should always be questioned.

Because capitalism is killing people. Also impossible.

Socialism killed far more people.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao....they're the record setters.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I can't even attempt this, because the words have different meanings on either side of the Atlantic. By British rules, I'm a right-winger, but if I lived in the USA I'd sooner eat slugs than vote GOP. The "official definitions" for the DIR define "conservatism" as including support for limited government and opposition to same-sex marriage, which is totally untrue for the British Conservative party. Terms like capitalist, neo-con, and libertarian aren't likely to be heard at all in UK political debate. And which is more right-wing: Le Pen's "make France French again" or Fillon's "make France Catholic again"?

 

[Rival]

I can't even attempt this, because the words have different meanings on either side of the Atlantic. By British rules, I'm a right-winger, but if I lived in the USA I'd sooner eat slugs than vote GOP. The "official definitions" for the DIR define "conservatism" as including support for limited government and opposition to same-sex marriage, which is totally untrue for the British Conservative party. Terms like capitalist, neo-con, and libertarian aren't likely to be heard at all in UK political debate. And which is more right-wing: Le Pen's "make France French again" or Fillon's "make France Catholic again"?

This is why I asked specifically for your definition. Not the party's or the dictionary's.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

This is why I asked specifically for your definition. Not the party's or the dictionary's.

But the ambiguity between different definitions is precisely why I tend to avoid such terms, and leave them to journalists.

I said that I'd be described as a right-winger by many in the UK, because I want the National Health Service denationalised, but others in the Conservative Party would call me a left-winger because I support tighter regulation of business and worker representation on company boards, both of which would not be thought left-wing in Germany. In the US, I'd with Bernie Sanders; he called himself a socialist, but I doubt if he has much in common with Jeremy Corbyn. Old-style labels just confuse the issues.

 

[icehorse]

Ah Rival, you're killing me! I wish this was many threads, not just one...

 

[Rival]

Ah Rival, you're killing me! I wish this was many threads, not just one...

That's what I like to hear!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This seems to be big business, not just on RF but everywhere.

So, I would like to hear how you (not your dictionary) define these common political labels:

Left

Right

Conservative

Liberal

Neo-Con

Libertarian

Socialist

Capitalist

Communist

Fascist

Feel free to add others.

I'm asking because these terms seem to have become so muddied as to be meaningless. Liberal and libertarian seem to be the same, while I've also seen folks using socialism and communism interchangeably. 'Fascist' is thrown around as an insult to anyone who doesn't agree, while neo-con seems to be drifting into obscurity and just seems to mean 'closet liberal'.

Left- Vague term used in recent years to defien the democrat position on government. Since we are in a two party system we are forced to have yes/no, black/white discussions about complex issues that cannot be simplified in such terms. And yet we do and have done so with intense polarization with appeals to our basic tribalistic instincts gathering around demagogues.

Right- Se the above but change democrat to republican.

Conservative- The classical definition is someone who wants to keep things the same. Classically it was meant as any issue would have 2 sides. One would want change and the other would not. The conservative group are ones who want to remain the same or even regress to previous policies. Though currently the term fiscially conservative which has connocations to being frugal. Overall I feel that today it simply refers to the religious traditionalism.

Liberal- Classically it meant someone who stood highly for personal freedom above all else. Though in today's world it seems that it has shifted to be almost interchangable with progressives. Progressives were the opposites of conservatives traditionally. One wants to maintain the status quo while the other whishes to change it. I see it mostly now as social progressives with democratic socialist trends.

Neo-Con- Eh. This is the vaguest term in the world. It can mean the alt right or even libretarian. What immediatly comes to mind is the same basic fiscal policies of republicans but without the religious influence.

Libertarian- Originally created by the Koch brothers with the help of a few other multi-billionairs back in the day as an attempt to gain political presence and defund the government and all its regultion it has since changed dramatically. Many of the original constituents and funders have since left the party and has worked to turn the Republican party into the dumpster fire it is today. What I would call the Neo-libertarian is those who suscribe to the belief that a free market works better for them than a regulated market. Reguardless of how valid that belief is they also believe the less government there is the better. Small army. Small regulation (or no regulation depending), no public services ect.

Socialist- A system of governance where by the means of production has been seized by the government. A word that has been misunderstood and misued by both sides. Many falsely believe it to be communism. Many falsely believe it to be democratic socialism which is different.

Capitalist- Someone who believes or suscribes to the theory that personal capital is the best way to move the economy.

Communist- Government control of most wealth including production, rationis and job selections.

Fascist- Any form of high government control of individuals. Authoritarian rule.