RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Yeah, I understand. FWIW: I avoid using the word in passing. It's gotten me into trouble on more than one occasion. You are correct in that it can breed confusion.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Socialism in the US
- Thread starter tourmaline
- Start date
-
- Tags
- socialism
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
That would raise the question, is America capitalist? Just as China isn't strictly socialist America is not strictly capitalist.
It would be nice if we didn't have the baggage and confusion of classical terms that cause confusion but it is what is.
Kiosk
He Thinks He's People
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 349
Question to anyone: do you think of socialism as a political system, or as an ideology? There's a subtle rather than pedantic difference there. It's relatively easy to point to individual political ideas and label them "socialist" or "socialistic", but much much harder to describe any particular (existing) political system as socialist, because there'll always be someone who'll argue that it isn't.
The fact is, the Left has developed in many directions since the time of Marx, and while all left-wing thinking is to some extent derived from Marx (the only possible exceptions I can think of are certain religious groups whose positions on some issues are left-wing by accident more than design), not all left-wing thinkers are Marxists. Also, the Left is anything but monolithic in its thinking; it's always been a mass of in-fighting factions. So there are numerous ways of running a country that can be described as "socialist", in as much as they adhere to basic tenets of socialist ideology, but as soon as you try to define socialism as a specific political system, you're onto a loser.
Your old-fashioned lefties (on this side of the Atlantic) would describe China as state capitalist, and North Korea as a deformed workers' state. None would describe either country as "socialist". A certain section of the far left used to consider Soviet Russia socialist, as advertised; Trotskyists (the bulk of the far left from the 60s to the 80s) would have denied this quite vehemently. Trotskyists - though there are very few left - would also snort at the idea of the British Labour Party being socialist, even back in the 1940s, but for most Brits who identify as socialists, that Attlee government is in fact a near-perfect illustration of what they mean by socialism. Objectively, the best description of Attlee's Labour Party is "democratic socialist"; this is subtly but substantially different from "social democratic", a more common modern European form of government which would be (and is) dismissed as centre-right by the hard Left, but seems almost unthinkably left-wing to many Americans. To Europeans, social democracy is considered left of centre, but (apart from among a right-wing fringe) it's not considered to be socialism, more what Americans would call "very liberal".
Disagreement over what exactly constitutes socialism has long been a characteristic of socialists (of all stripes), so it's hardly surprising that the Right finds it so easy to pick up the word and chuck it around as they please. But no one who is a.) honest, and b.) in their right mind would describe Obama's America - or Obama himself - as "socialist". They might describe individual Obama policies as socialist, in a rather vague sense of the word, though in truth they're more representative of social democratic thought. Obama is a centrist, some of whose policies are centre-left, while others (e.g. de facto acceptance of the Bush doctrine) are clearly right-wing. He's not a socialist. That's about as close to clarity as we're likely to get here, I fear. Seriously, this thread could go on for 300 pages. It's impossible to come up with an effective definition of "socialism", with reference to an actual, functioning political system, because even socialists can't agree. What causes the confusion is not so much that the meaning of words evolves over time, more than left-wing thought has evolved over the last 100+ years, in twenty directions at once, with "socialism" (or variants) used as an umbrella term. It's like trying to get neocons, paleocons, Ayn Rand objectivists, Lincoln Republicans and Nazis under one roof, and agree on what constitutes "non-socialism". It's all a bit... messy.
The fact is, the Left has developed in many directions since the time of Marx, and while all left-wing thinking is to some extent derived from Marx (the only possible exceptions I can think of are certain religious groups whose positions on some issues are left-wing by accident more than design), not all left-wing thinkers are Marxists. Also, the Left is anything but monolithic in its thinking; it's always been a mass of in-fighting factions. So there are numerous ways of running a country that can be described as "socialist", in as much as they adhere to basic tenets of socialist ideology, but as soon as you try to define socialism as a specific political system, you're onto a loser.
Your old-fashioned lefties (on this side of the Atlantic) would describe China as state capitalist, and North Korea as a deformed workers' state. None would describe either country as "socialist". A certain section of the far left used to consider Soviet Russia socialist, as advertised; Trotskyists (the bulk of the far left from the 60s to the 80s) would have denied this quite vehemently. Trotskyists - though there are very few left - would also snort at the idea of the British Labour Party being socialist, even back in the 1940s, but for most Brits who identify as socialists, that Attlee government is in fact a near-perfect illustration of what they mean by socialism. Objectively, the best description of Attlee's Labour Party is "democratic socialist"; this is subtly but substantially different from "social democratic", a more common modern European form of government which would be (and is) dismissed as centre-right by the hard Left, but seems almost unthinkably left-wing to many Americans. To Europeans, social democracy is considered left of centre, but (apart from among a right-wing fringe) it's not considered to be socialism, more what Americans would call "very liberal".
Disagreement over what exactly constitutes socialism has long been a characteristic of socialists (of all stripes), so it's hardly surprising that the Right finds it so easy to pick up the word and chuck it around as they please. But no one who is a.) honest, and b.) in their right mind would describe Obama's America - or Obama himself - as "socialist". They might describe individual Obama policies as socialist, in a rather vague sense of the word, though in truth they're more representative of social democratic thought. Obama is a centrist, some of whose policies are centre-left, while others (e.g. de facto acceptance of the Bush doctrine) are clearly right-wing. He's not a socialist. That's about as close to clarity as we're likely to get here, I fear. Seriously, this thread could go on for 300 pages. It's impossible to come up with an effective definition of "socialism", with reference to an actual, functioning political system, because even socialists can't agree. What causes the confusion is not so much that the meaning of words evolves over time, more than left-wing thought has evolved over the last 100+ years, in twenty directions at once, with "socialism" (or variants) used as an umbrella term. It's like trying to get neocons, paleocons, Ayn Rand objectivists, Lincoln Republicans and Nazis under one roof, and agree on what constitutes "non-socialism". It's all a bit... messy.
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
But that is my question for you
. What is the utility in embracing the loose word play of Republican smear tactics?But we are not idle players. A while back "gay" had taken a new meaning as a pejorative that meant "thing I don't like", just like "retard" before that. People successfully saved the former, while the latter never recovered in its new or old meaning.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
In his book, The Language Of Thought, Pinkers notes that we don't get to pick and choose which words are adopted by society. FWIW: I don't use the word "socialist" lightly nor do I use it often. I simply note that there is utility to the word and it is used.
I think you have, somewhat, characterized it wrongly. The people who rooted for the former we're vindicated just like the people who rooted for the Giants were vindicated at this years Superbowl. Not that people can have no influence on words. I'm fine with that. My point here is simply to note realities.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
They did in 1982
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Obama is not a socialist.
Obama has implimented some socialist, or socialist-lite policies.
The US, UK, Japan, Australia and China are all mixtures of socialism, liberalism and capitalism, the difference being how much of each is used. In most of Europe, it's a fairly even mix of all three, in the US, there's a lot less socialism and much more liberalism and capitalism, in China, there's virtually no liberalism (although that's changing) and a lot more socialism, with a little authoritarianism mixed in.
On the other hand a country like North Korea is 0% Liberalism, 0% Capitalism, 10% Socialism and about 90% authoritarianism.
Socialism is both a descriptor for an overarching set of policies/beliefs ("I am a Socialist") a partial descriptor showing bias towards Socialism ("I am a democratic Socialist") or a descriptor of a single issue ("this is socialist"). I am the second one, Obama sometimes does the third one.
The problem is that large numbers of people in the USA seem to be utterly confused by this, and assume anyone doing any of the third option or professing to the second option is instead saying they ar the first option, or worse are defining themselves as the previously unstated option 4, "I am a Communist who accepts Socialism as a necessary step towards Communism". This is made worse when they don't actually understand what Socialism and Communism are making the assumptions that there should be total state ownership of everything (as one of my profs called it, The People's Toothbrush fallacy) or utter lack of liberalism or rights of individuals. As it stands, there has never been a truely Option 1 government, most likely because it's ridiculously unfeasable, and Communism is flat out impossible, but because the USSR, North Korea, Cuba and formerly China dressed up their dictatorships with Socialist window dressing (and a little of option 3) people assume that is what Socialism looks like. It doesn't. Socialism looks like....nothing in particular because it's too vague. What happens is that people attempt the control of economic and manufacturing capabilities (very Socialist) and then either stop there because that's all they intended, still keeping a liberalist/capitalist edge to fuel industry and economy (which resulted in the UK's best modern Government) or fall down on the next bit, either by forming a coalition of a handful to control everything (leading to corruption and eventual collapse under the weight of it's own bloated corpse, see USSR) or form a regime so brutal and insular that it's citizens are brainwashed with continual propoganda describing absolutely everything outside their insular bubble as being a hell-hole, which leads to a different form of corruption and a psychotic rogue state that can only be handled very carefully by the one outside power that is allowed to really talk to them (North Korea).
There is a definition of Socialism, but nonetheless it still has degrees. Was the USSR a Socialist nation? Sure, but that doesn't mean that Socialism automatically leads to the USSR. Is America a Capitalist nation? Absolutely, but it has it's Socialist elements, and it certainly isn't pure Capitalist. You won't convince the Red-Scare lunatics otherwise though, just like you won't convince the imbeciles on the left that not all Conservative policies will lead to unbridled capitalism or a Fascist state.
Obama has implimented some socialist, or socialist-lite policies.
The US, UK, Japan, Australia and China are all mixtures of socialism, liberalism and capitalism, the difference being how much of each is used. In most of Europe, it's a fairly even mix of all three, in the US, there's a lot less socialism and much more liberalism and capitalism, in China, there's virtually no liberalism (although that's changing) and a lot more socialism, with a little authoritarianism mixed in.
On the other hand a country like North Korea is 0% Liberalism, 0% Capitalism, 10% Socialism and about 90% authoritarianism.
Socialism is both a descriptor for an overarching set of policies/beliefs ("I am a Socialist") a partial descriptor showing bias towards Socialism ("I am a democratic Socialist") or a descriptor of a single issue ("this is socialist"). I am the second one, Obama sometimes does the third one.
The problem is that large numbers of people in the USA seem to be utterly confused by this, and assume anyone doing any of the third option or professing to the second option is instead saying they ar the first option, or worse are defining themselves as the previously unstated option 4, "I am a Communist who accepts Socialism as a necessary step towards Communism". This is made worse when they don't actually understand what Socialism and Communism are making the assumptions that there should be total state ownership of everything (as one of my profs called it, The People's Toothbrush fallacy) or utter lack of liberalism or rights of individuals. As it stands, there has never been a truely Option 1 government, most likely because it's ridiculously unfeasable, and Communism is flat out impossible, but because the USSR, North Korea, Cuba and formerly China dressed up their dictatorships with Socialist window dressing (and a little of option 3) people assume that is what Socialism looks like. It doesn't. Socialism looks like....nothing in particular because it's too vague. What happens is that people attempt the control of economic and manufacturing capabilities (very Socialist) and then either stop there because that's all they intended, still keeping a liberalist/capitalist edge to fuel industry and economy (which resulted in the UK's best modern Government) or fall down on the next bit, either by forming a coalition of a handful to control everything (leading to corruption and eventual collapse under the weight of it's own bloated corpse, see USSR) or form a regime so brutal and insular that it's citizens are brainwashed with continual propoganda describing absolutely everything outside their insular bubble as being a hell-hole, which leads to a different form of corruption and a psychotic rogue state that can only be handled very carefully by the one outside power that is allowed to really talk to them (North Korea).
There is a definition of Socialism, but nonetheless it still has degrees. Was the USSR a Socialist nation? Sure, but that doesn't mean that Socialism automatically leads to the USSR. Is America a Capitalist nation? Absolutely, but it has it's Socialist elements, and it certainly isn't pure Capitalist. You won't convince the Red-Scare lunatics otherwise though, just like you won't convince the imbeciles on the left that not all Conservative policies will lead to unbridled capitalism or a Fascist state.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Good post, Mark.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Ditto.
ditto the ditto.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
The basic point is that there has to be some middle ground between watering the term down to the point where it's meaningless ("Obama is a socialist"), and a definition so overly strict that only North Korea qualifies*.
* And possibly not even then.
* And possibly not even then.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
That definition is 100% correct, and you have yet top show any evidence whatsoever that it isn't. And much evidence has been shown that it is.,
China was a 100% socialist country that over the last several decades has moved towards capitalism in certain geographic areas.
Your entire argument is an excluded middle fallacy.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Once again: a social welfare state is not a socialist state. They are completely different things, unrelated except for the word "social".
You may as well claim the USA is communist, because it is composed of communities. It's every bit as nonsnsical.
You may as well claim the USA is communist, because it is composed of communities. It's every bit as nonsnsical.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Because words can't evolve. It's impossible for the word "gay" to ever refer to homosexuals. That's just nonsensical because arguments by assertion are the best.
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
In total agreement.
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
The Daily Show just had a segment on this. Wasn't particularly detailed, but it showed the silliness of the situation:
Linky.
In case you were wondering, the DSA was the group that endorsed Obama in one of his State senate run, IIRC. They are an umbrella group that tries to bring together all tendencies, and are nonpartisan when it comes giving endorsements. They are one of the largest and least bat-guano of the socialist organisations. Here is a bit of what they said way back when the s word was being throw around:
Linky.
The Socialist Organizer is a split-off of Socialist Action, both of which are Trotskyist, over a debate about re-proclaiming the Fourth International. It wants to make a revolutionary sociality party, and that is the main beef with the DSA.
It is actually a fairly nice example of the classic reform vs revolution debate.
Linky.
In case you were wondering, the DSA was the group that endorsed Obama in one of his State senate run, IIRC. They are an umbrella group that tries to bring together all tendencies, and are nonpartisan when it comes giving endorsements. They are one of the largest and least bat-guano of the socialist organisations. Here is a bit of what they said way back when the s word was being throw around:
Linky.
The Socialist Organizer is a split-off of Socialist Action, both of which are Trotskyist, over a debate about re-proclaiming the Fourth International. It wants to make a revolutionary sociality party, and that is the main beef with the DSA.
It is actually a fairly nice example of the classic reform vs revolution debate.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Damn that's funny. And informative. Thanks Tsukasa.
Last edited:
Ausmerican
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 3,490
That was a great post Mark. I just refuse to use ditto as Rush Limbaugh fans have redefined it into a different meaning.
