How Socialist...

[Twilight Hue]

I could have put a bet on that you'd say that.

U win!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

U win!

In practice it is a balancing act between too much and to little.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In practice it is a balancing act between too much and to little.

If everything was balanced and in harmony between extremes, I probably wouldn't have such a bitter taste in my mouth over socialism, capitalism, and liberty.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If everything was balanced and in harmony between extremes I probably wouldn't have such a bitter taste in my mouth over socialism and liberty.

Or for me the libertarian and the luck of how, where and what you are born with for nature and nurture.
I get what you are saying. Do you get what I am saying?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Those things are mutually exclusive.
Socialism can only exist when it's imposed upon
everyone in a country. But anarchy is about the
lack of control.

Practically I probably agree. But are you really suggesting Proudhon and Barkunin are not socialists?

 

[oldbadger]

In which case it cannot be socialism you are against but wicked, greedy corrupt leadership?
And that we can find in any government, left, right or centre.
So I wonder what could be done about that....... that's the problem.

True. Yeah.
I believe in Social Welfare for all, provided by reasonable taxation, levies, rates, etc.
And I believe in rooting out fat wealthies who hoard their money away in hiding places. The Misers!

Bad leaders! We need to find 'em and lock them away.

 

[Revoltingest]

Practically I probably agree. But are you really suggesting Proudhon and Barkunin are not socialists?

No.
Never heard of'm.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No.
Never heard of'm.

Ah...well...fair enough.

They predated old mate Marx, and they were most definitely socialists. From their particular brand of socialism, anarchist schools of thought were born.
My only point, really, was that socialism is an umbrella term, and doesn't only refer to Marxism (for example).

Anarchism is a form...or outgrowth, depending how you like to argue the toss...of socialism.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - Wikipedia
Mikhail Bakunin - Wikipedia

By the way, I have no expectation you'll be the least interested in either man, and that's fine. But...Bakunin was an opponent of Marx, and one of his more famous predictions was that Marxist regimes were doomed to be single party dictatorships, rather than shared ownership by the proletariat. Some of his views are almost...well...libertarian...ahem...

(Apart from the ones which completely aren't, of course...lol)

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah...well...fair enough.

They predated old mate Marx, and they were most definitely socialists. From their particular brand of socialism, anarchist schools of thought were born.
My only point, really, was that socialism is an umbrella term, and doesn't only refer to Marxism (for example).

Anarchism is a form...or outgrowth, depending how you like to argue the toss...of socialism.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - Wikipedia
Mikhail Bakunin - Wikipedia

There's a problem using historical definitions in the context
of a later using different ones.

Using modern definitions, socialism couldn't happen
with anarchy, ie, no government to enforce socialism,
& prevent free economic association, which would
result in capitalism.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism

noun
1 a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2 the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism

noun
1 a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2 procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3 (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There's a problem using historical definitions in the context
of a later using different ones.

Using modern definitions, socialism couldn't happen
without a government to enforce it, & prevent free
economic association, ie, capitalism.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism

Luckily, I'm not arguing anything other than the simple fact that socialism isn't a single and coherent ideology. I could provide modern examples of the same, but my initial comment was around someone suggesting 'Not sure what Open Boarders has to do with Socialism. Sounds like an Anarchist thing but don’t quote me on that.'

To which I responded 'Go back far enough, the founding fathers of anarchism were socialists.'

I completely stand by that, and would see it as entirely uncontroversial...indeed, it's that rarest of flowers : factual.

However, I do feel better know that we aren't just in 100% agreement on everything. It was getting worrisome.

 

[Revoltingest]

Luckily, I'm not arguing anything other than the simple fact that socialism isn't a single and coherent ideology. I could provide modern examples of the same, but my initial comment was around someone suggesting 'Not sure what Open Boarders has to do with Socialism. Sounds like an Anarchist thing but don’t quote me on that.'

To which I responded 'Go back far enough, the founding fathers of anarchism were socialists.'

I completely stand by that, and would see it as entirely uncontroversial...indeed, it's that rarest of flowers : factual.

However, I do feel better know that we aren't just in 100% agreement on everything. It was getting worrisome.

There's always a risk we might agree in the future.

 

[Brinne]

I would support the first 5; but none of these are inherently socialist. Most revolutionary socialists would view these changes as not going far enough, and supporting them being either 'baby steps' or not at all worth supporting due to their perpetuation of neoliberal capitalist system.

No one has really been able to agree what "socialism" is or isn't - basically since the Utopian Socialists published their first writings before Marx - for decades at this point. But a good place to start is it is "not capitalism." So "how Socialist" is hard to define; and easier question is "capitalism, yes or no?"

 

[Kooky]

There's a problem using historical definitions in the context
of a later using different ones.

Using modern definitions, socialism couldn't happen
with anarchy, ie, no government to enforce socialism,
& prevent free economic association, which would
result in capitalism.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism

Bakunin and Kropotkin said otherwise, so you're wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bakunin and Kropotkin said otherwise, so you're wrong.

Oh, dear...yet another anti-dictionarian living in some
past century. The language has evolved since their day.
I suppose you still think....
"Buxom" means obedient or compliant.
"Dapper" means brave.
"Nice" means foolish or wanton.
"Nervous" means strong.
"Bully" means sweetheart.

Insisting on obsolete definitions is mistakenly pedantic,
& very misleading. Get with the times, Berford.

 

[metis]

In fact, in Europe in single-payer free healthcare countries, no useless surgery is paid for by the State.
Only all those necessary for your survival/health.
If one has cancer, I do not understand how it is acceptable that the patient pays for the surgery that can save their life.
It is absurd that physicians consider this acceptable.
Or if a woman delivers a baby in the hospital, she has to pay medical bills.
I find all this extremely abhorrent.

And I do not think that the so called health insurance companies are guided by "philanthropic Christian spirit" .

I'm with you 100% on this.

 

[metis]

BTW, some don't understand that there is not just one type of "socialism":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[Kooky]

Oh, dear...yet another anti-dictionarian living in some
past century. The language has evolved since their day.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but your personal pet definition of "socialism", which clashes with both academic terminology and the attested everyday usage of the term, is not "the language" nor is it "the dictionary".

 

[Kooky]

Well, lets see what folks are looking for.

IMO socialism by the people sounds ideal but never seems to work out that way.

Capitalism doesn't seem to work, either, but people seem too married to its ad copy version to notice or care.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but your personal pet definition...

I use dictionaries.
You ferriners really should use them if
effective communication is the goal.

 

[Nakosis]

Capitalism doesn't seem to work, either, but people seem too married to its ad copy version to notice or care.

I think it is more a problem with human nature than the economic system. I suspect even socialism would work if not for human greed.