Those on the right, define "socialism" and "socialist"..

[RandFan]

Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Dictionary.

Your definition is so broad that it is almost meaningless, corporations, churches and little league baseball teams would be socialist under your standard. Fortunately, the dictionary does support an actual meaningful definition. The Marxist stage is largely irrelevant as it only exists in fantasies and has no place in discussions about the real world.

I don't think the word socialism should be used. I think we are past that now. I would hope that conservatives would agree but unfortunately I can't get most on board and since I started this thread others have used the term to characterize Obama. Thanks though. I appreciate that very much.

 

[respect]

Given the problem of equivocation I'd say that "socialism" is out. I thought it was a good idea to embrace it but that's clearly not a good idea.. Social program. Welfare. FWIW: I'm very much against simply relying on voluntary charity.

It was "government enforced" that upset you in this case, not "socialism". The implication of any substitute would still be that it is government enforced. And that hardly implies that voluntary charity would be an adequate substitute.

 

[RandFan]

It was "government enforced" that upset you in this case, not "socialism". The implication of any substitute would still be that it is government enforced. And that hardly implies that voluntary charity would be an adequate substitute.

I'm sincerely sorry but I honestly have no idea what your point is. "This case"? "Upset" me? "government enforced"? I have an inkling but I cant quite reconcile your points.

 

[respect]

I'm sincerely sorry but I honestly have no idea what your point is. "This case"? "Upset" me? "government enforced"? I have an inkling but I cant quite reconcile your points.

No one mentioned socialism.

I would take issue with the use of the words "govt enforced".

 

[RandFan]

No one mentioned socialism.

I'm sorry but you have me at a complete disadvantaged. I apologize but our conversation is like 5 days old. I've written many pages of code, performed 8 audits and responded to dozens of posts. I honestly don't understand your point. I've read back a few posts but it's just not coming to me. Perhaps turning 50 last month did me in. Could you bring me up to speed?

Okay, I got it. Hold on.

 

[RandFan]

No one mentioned socialism.

You caught me off guard. You just gave me the definition of socialism. Why?

I any event, social program and/or welfare are good.

 

[respect]

You caught me off guard. You just gave me the definition of socialism. Why?

I any event, social program and/or welfare are good.

Two separate issues in this thread, welfare works as it implies that the government was behind it, social program is not so good as either government enforced wealth transfers or voluntary charity fit, the goal is to find a term which you find acceptable that describes government enforced wealth redistribution but is not called as such as it gets you upset. Welfare fits but would seem to carry the same negative vibe that "government enforced" does.

 

[RandFan]

Two separate issues in this thread, welfare works as it implies that the government was behind it, social program is not so good as either government enforced...

Well, we could call government enforced traffic laws "traffic laws". Public school? Census? Vaccinations?

To what end the loaded language? Foment anger and distrust of govt policies and programs? If that is your purpose why not "Jack Booted thugs enforced"? I'm not upset. I'm interested in communicating without using loaded terminology for the purpose of polemics (see below).

Do you want to discuss something or is this just an opportunity to propagate an ideology? I've no problem discussing the issues but I'm not interested in games.

Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional overtones or connotations, and evoke strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. For example, the phrase tax relief refers literally to changes that reduce the amount of tax citizens must pay. However, use of the emotive word relief implies the tax was an unreasonable burden to begin with.

 

[RandFan]

Do you have a preferred term which differentiates it from voluntary charity?

Social program. Welfare.

I any event, social program and/or welfare are good.

Welfare fits but would seem to carry the same negative vibe that "government enforced" does.

No. Welfare or social program is fine. I honestly don't know how many times I can answer you before you accept my answer.

May we move on?

 

[respect]

Well, we could call government enforced traffic laws "traffic laws". Public school? Census? Vaccinations?

To what end the loaded language? Foment anger and distrust of govt policies and programs? If that is your purpose why not "Jack Booted thugs enforced"? I'm not upset. I'm interested in communicating without using loaded terminology for the purpose of polemics (see below).

Do you want to discuss something or is this just an opportunity to propagate an ideology? I've no problem discussing the issues but I'm not interested in games.

Well, some things are understood to be government enforced like traffic laws simply by saying traffic laws. You asked for an explanation of what a welfare state is which is hard to do without differentiating between government enforced implemented wealth transfers rather than voluntary charitable wealth transfers which accomplish many of the same goals. The word welfare is fine for making that difference clear but you can't really use it to define itself so I'm not entirely clear what you wanted in the first place. How do you define a government action without acknowledging that it is a government action because pointing that out would be loaded?

 

[RandFan]

Well, some things are understood to be government enforced like traffic laws simply by saying traffic laws. You asked for an explanation of what a welfare state is which is hard to do without differentiating between government enforced implemented wealth transfers rather than voluntary charitable wealth transfers which accomplish many of the same goals. The word welfare is fine for making that difference clear but you can't really use it to define itself so I'm not entirely clear what you wanted in the first place. How do you define a government action without acknowledging that it is a government action because pointing that out would be loaded?

How often do we use "government enforced" to define traffic laws? Public school? Vaccinations? etc.. I'm not saying it never happens but since when do people scratch their heads and wonder if govt lacks the ability to enforce it's policies? Govt enforced strikes me as a tautology. Not that govt never makes recommendations but something like welfare wouldn't call to mind a recommendation.

I've seriously thought about it and I find the term entirely unnecessary. If you want to call it "government enforced" and you are consistent with all of the other govt programs and you are quick to add the designation to public school or vaccinations, etc, then I'm fine with that.

Can we move on?

 

[respect]

How often do we use "government enforced" to define traffic laws? Public school? Vaccinations? etc.. I'm not saying it never happens but since when do people scratch their heads and wonder if govt lacks the ability to enforce it's policies? Govt enforced strikes me as a tautology. Not that govt never makes recommendations but something like welfare wouldn't call to mind a recommendation.

I've seriously thought about it and I find the term entirely unnecessary. If you want to call it "government enforced" and you are consistent with all of the other govt programs and you are quick to add the designation to public school or vaccinations, etc, then I'm fine with that.

Can we move on?

If you were asked to define traffic laws would you not say something along the lines of them being a set of behaviors motorists are expected to follow which are enforced by the government?

 

[RandFan]

If you were asked to define traffic laws would you not say something along the lines of them being a set of behaviors motorists are expected to follow which are enforced by the government?

Depends on the context. On a school thesis? Yes. In a discussion at JREF? No. Who doesn't know that traffic courts have the ability to fine and even jail those who break the laws? On a school thesis I might explain the roles of Judges, marshals and police officers. In a discussion on JREF I would think those roles are a given.

 

[respect]

Depends on the context. On a school thesis? Yes. In a discussion at JREF? No. Who doesn't know that traffic courts have the ability to fine and even jail those who break the laws?

No one. However you asked for clarification on what a welfare state is, such a description is hard to come up with if acknowledging that it is orchestrated by the government is somehow unacceptable. Your fear of loaded terms is rather silly in this case.

 

[RandFan]

No one. However you asked for clarification on what a welfare state is, such a description is hard to come up with if acknowledging that it is orchestrated by the government is somehow unacceptable. Your fear of loaded terms is rather silly in this case.

Actually no, it isn't. The enforcement is a given. If you said that the "welfare state" is the realocation of funds to ensure the health and security of citizens I wouldn't scratch my head and wonder if the govt had the means or authority to do so.

Sorry, no. But oddly enough you and I both know that I understand the point and on several occasions I've asked if we can move on. But you obviously can't which leads me to believe that the "enforcement" is simply rhetorical.

I concede that govt has the authority and means to tax and to allocate resources.

This preoccupation with "govt enforcement" is tired and growing very old. Do you have something substantive you would like to discuss? Or would you like to beat this dead horse some more?

Can we move on?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good but I'm still not clear on specific social programs, departments, regulations and policies in the US. Can we exclude a single social program from socialism in the US? If that's not clear let me know and I'll improve it.

Also, Gaius cannot be said to be "on the right" so there's no reason to think that when someone on the right uses the term that it consistently carries the meaning Gaius laid out.

In fact, when it's used in place of an argument that some proposal or policy is bad, I can bet they're not using Gaius' definition (which allows for "good" socialism).

 

[Kopji]

Ok, I used the word 'socialist' in another thread without realizing how polarizing a word it was. Damned to post here I suppose. I don't really think of myself in terms of left or right though.

I think the word 'socialism' does have meaning as used by the 'right'. But it is not used to mean a specific philosophy; it means someone who rejects a haigographic view of US history.

The history of the US can be viewed as us being poor religious outcasts from a morally dying Europe, courageously overcoming adversity, landing on hostile shores, writing a world class Constitution blessed by God and gradually becoming a great nation that is a force for good in the world...
or
the history of the US can be viewed as cycles of struggle of people against authority, worker unions against a few monopolies, human rights, civil rights, speaking truth to power, a constant battle against poverty, issues of property rights, and the use of military might to protect it once we had it.

When Obama is called a 'socialist', it is just another way of saying that he rejects the first view of history. He must 'hate the US'. Seems simple enough.

Actually, I doubt that any black person's experience of US history would completely result in the first perspective...

 

[Ladewig]

Duh!

http://conservapedia.com/Socialism

Yikes. Apparently one aspect of socialism is having sex in the wrong way:

Christian socialists have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,[30] the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism.

 

[bikerdruid]

Yikes. Apparently one aspect of socialism is having sex in the wrong way:

wow...who knew?

 

[C_Felix]

Hello again!

So, did we ever get a coherent definition?

Let alone from those on the right....did we ever come to a consensus on what socialism is?


I got into the typical "Obama is a socialist" debate with someone at work today.

After a few minutes of talking I suggested we define socialism. I asked him for his definition.

It had quite a few "uhhhhh"s and "they"s in it.

It was something along the lines of, "Uhhhh..when they take your money...and...uh...when they give it to....when they spread it around."

I replied with, "How about a centrally, governmentally, planned economy and centrally, governmentally, system of the creation, distribution, and possible pricing structure of the basic needs of life and a society."

He then said something along the lines of, "That's the problem with people like you." And then he left.

So...how did I do with my definition?