[philippe]

"Socialism" is, strictly speaking, an economic system, not a political one.

Good observation, but as economics are directly influencing politics and vice versa...
Social materialism is indeed en socio-economic system, not a ideology nor a 'belief'.
Pity that 'others' have turned it in a dictatorial system and some kind of belief. But it could have been 'good' if it was 'applied' properly, we will never know for sure.
In the beginning of the Spanish civil war, in 1933, there was perhaps an chance it could have worked, but systems such as the one who send in the Condor legion destroyed everything, literally.
Between 1939 and 1975, Franco and his friends ware responsible for the dead of approximative 1,3 million people, that is about 10% of the Spanish population at the time, and not counting the ones who fell during the war! Franco was a right wing extreme Catholic fundamentalist, a true fascist.
Yes, after all, there was no real deference between the Soviet communist elite and Franco's falangists, they all wanted personal power and suppressing the people.

Theories and systems are very nice on paper, but the reality is so different!

[philippe]

It's always amusing to see a person call Socialists "lefties" of a derivative of that, and then go on about how "Socialist" countries such as the old USSR or Nazi Germany were Socialist.
The sad reality is, the "Socialist" governments of the USSR, Nazi Germany and all the other dictatorships that are held up as poster children for the evils of Socialism were also about as far to the right of the political spectrum as one could ever dream of.
It is ironic that those who bleat about the evils of Socialism are the same ones who are living with a rapidly self destructing Capitalist system that is moving more and more towards total failure.
If Socialism is so bad, why are countries with strong social programs doing so much better than the capitalist countries such as the USA in terms of looking after their own citizens?

"...The answer, my friend, is [egocentrism]..."

[Nesster]

This whole orthodoxy of What Socialism Really Is is just a red herring and a zombie straw man.

In America it retains its power by association with Russia and Communism - emotional power, of course, as in America the right tends to argue through emotion rather than logic.

The Social Democracies of this world are of course different than Socialist Dictatorships, and offer a different model for solving political and social issues. There is a large contingent of Americans and American businessmen who believe in the social theories of the early 1900's - Social Darwinism, the efficacy of fear based motivators, and the absolute subjugation of labor and intellectual property to real property (ownership).

The true model for some of the things American Progressives are arguing for is found among our European allies and our northern neighbor. Although the right manages outrage even at these mild and functional models, it's usually emotionally charged through some homophobic (effete) and anti-communist (external enemy) analogies that have the benefit of simultaneously buffing our sense of American Exceptionalist Greatness.

[ConstIva]

"Socialism" is, strictly speaking, an economic system, not a political one.

I am 100% certain that the quoted sentence is an expression of an OPINION of an INDIVIDUAL ("lithos"), rather than citing of a definition (definitions) given by "founding fathers" of Socialism.
As a private opinion, it has its right of existence, but has very little value, if any, in and for a discussion of advantages or disadvantages of Socialism.
Why? Because it either unintentionally misleads or intentionally deceives the participants of the discussion.

To my opinion, the only meaningful way of a discussion on this issue is to take as a reference source the definition(s) given by founding fathers rather than somebody's private interpretation of it.


The very term "socialism" was coined by Saint-Simon who used the Latin root "socialis," which means "living with others."
Even from this short reminder is clear that Socialism, strictly speaking, is a POLITICAL system that arranges the economical activity of a society in a certain way.

We can only judge Socialism as it was theoretically developed and practically implemented by its founding fathers (starting from Owen and Saint-Simon, then followed and adjusted by Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao-Castro-Neto-Ho-Pol Pot-Grotewohl/Ulbricht-Husak/Dubček etc.)

Anything else will be a discussion on a different topic or topics.
For instance: Different forms of Socialism; or Elements of Socialism applied by Social-Democratic Parties in Capitalist countries of Europe, and so forth.

Resume: Socialism is a Political System that is based on the State ownership of industries, under which the State economical structure is managed by the Government.

As such, Socialism and multi-party system are two incompatible things.
And other parties beyond the ruling one are nothing but a decoration and play no role in the Social structure.

---

Last edited by ConstIva; 02-22-2011 at 08:48 AM.

[shooz]

Thanks Constantine!
By your definition: Corporatism = Socialism
The aim of corporatism is to weaken and eliminate as much competition as possible.

[ConstIva]

It's always amusing to see a person call Socialists "lefties"

Dear "Wheatfield",

the words "lefty" or "right" applied to philosophical theories and ideologies are nothing but empty words.
They are used rather "automatically," by convention, not by the real meaning.

You and/or I can call International Socialists (aka "Socialists" as this term is commonly used) and National Socialists (what many people call simply Nazis, forgetting that it is an abbreviation of National SOCIALISM) red, yellow, magenta, turquoise, right, left, top, bottom, behind, before, etc. - no word of those "nicknames" reflect the real essence of the ideologies.

Again, "Left", "Right" and anything in the middle are nothing but empty conventional words.

I am sorry that I occasionally used the word "Left(y)," which I in fact don't like right because of its meaninglessness.

But it was Marx, then Lenin, then Madam Pelosi with Mr. Obama who used to call people with Socialist mindset "the Left". So, what can I do?

[shooz]

Propaganda!

And you said you didn't listen to it.
You spread it.

[Nesster]

Thanks Constantine!
By your definition: Corporatism = Socialism
The aim of corporatism is to weaken and eliminate as much competition as possible.

I don't see how you get that- but an interesting parallel is that within a (large) corporation, things work in largely socialist ways: there's only one party (though there may be factions that covertly jostle for power within that one party), there's a lot of internal machinery to manage and set production goals (and much effort to either get the credit for anything that goes well, and to put blame elsewhere for everythign that doesn't). There are periodic Thought Revolutions to Purify Our Culture...

[shooz]

Exactly.

[GeneV]

Resume: Socialism is a Political System that is based on the State ownership of industries, under which the State economical structure is managed by the Government.

As such, Socialism and multi-party system are two incompatible things.
And other parties beyond the ruling one are nothing but a decoration and play no role in the Social structure.

I would agree with that definition, but the next sentence only follows if you have a society obsessed with ideological purity. If you have a capitalist society equally obsessed with purity, you will not have a multi-party system, either. The Lenin-Mao-Pol Pot, etc. theory of a communist dictatorship failed. You will find no argument on that. A purely capitalist state would be no picnic either, as it would become completely dominated and corrupted by large corporate interests who will be as antithetical to a real multiparty system as any communist. Even the "founding father" of capitalism, Adam Smith, saw danger in his contemporary multinational corporation, the East India Company.

You will find few if any examples of a system today that does not include elements of both capitalism and socialism. Using the term socialism to generate fear, as is done by many on the right, is as damaging as the manner in which capitalism was used in communist propaganda.

[ConstIva]

"By your definition: Corporatism = Socialism"

Wrong conclusion, shooz.

But it could be true, if corporations are owned and governed by the State Government.

In any case, you are right in that an amalgamation of corporations leads to monopoly, and monopoly is one of the main signs of Socialism: Socialism = no competition.
So called "Socialist competition", widely spread in the former USSR, was nothing but B.S.

[shooz]

I've been trying to explain it to you Constantine.
In todays America it is the ONLY definition.
Just think of Wall Street as the politburo that controls the individual states of the corporations.
Manipulating prices and commodities to create shortages in order to insure it's survival,crush competition and insure rising profits.
They learned well from the USSR how to do this.
PS. they also control the propaganda.

[GeneV]

Wrong conclusion, shooz.

But it could be true, if corporations are owned and governed by the State Government.

In any case, you are right in that an amalgamation of corporations leads to monopoly, and monopoly is one of the main signs of Socialism: Socialism = no competition.
So called "Socialist competition", widely spread in the former USSR, was nothing but B.S.

I don't think that acknowledges the big picture. Corporatism functions more like socialism than many want to admit.

Publicly owned corporations are essentially governments regardless of whether they are owned by a "state." A large, dominant public corporation has most of the ills of a socialist state. It seeks to eliminate competition and often does so successfully. It is owned by millions of people whose vote is diluted such that actual control ends up with the bureaucrats who enrich themselves. It has no conscience. It seeks to dominate the individual and other governments. Again, many of these aspects were of concern to Adam Smith 200 years ago in writing capitalist theory.

[ConstIva]

A purely capitalist state would be no picnic either, as it would become completely dominated and corrupted by large corporate interests who will be as antithetical to a real multiparty system as any communist.

It's hard NOT TO agree with you.

Even the "founding father" of capitalism, Adam Smith, saw this danger in his contemporary multinational corporation, the East India Company.

As you may have read, I already wrote about the danger of big monopolies.

You will find few if any examples of a system today that does not include elements of both capitalism and socialism.

It's also true.

Using the term socialism to generate fear, as is done by many on the right, is as damaging as the manner in which capitalism was used in communist propaganda.

The term socialism is used by different people in different ways, as far as I observe.

The main task of those people who I RESPECT AND APPLAUD, is to prevent our country from being "fundamentally transformed" into a Socialist state.

That's why they HAVE TO use this term: too many people don't realize how bad it would be to fulfill and put into practice fantasies of [doped] adherents and disciples of Socialism who personally have no clue what Socialism is.

[Nesster]

The term socialism is used by different people in different ways, as far as I observe.

The main task of those people who I RESPECT AND APPLAUD, is to prevent our country from being "fundamentally transformed" into a Socialist state.

That's why they HAVE TO use this term: too many people don't realize how bad it would be to fulfill and put into practice fantasies of [doped] adherents and disciples of Socialism who personally have no clue what Socialism is.

Yet, what your argument fails to consider is what your identified Socialists are actually for; or alternately, to make distinctions between whoever it is and the actual politics of Obama, Pelosi et al.

Therefore, it is part an parcel of the misleading propaganda we're being subjected to. Obama specifically rejects Socialism the way you construct it, as does just about the entire Democratic party.

The only doped fantasies about socialism in present day American politics are from the far right. And, as I say, these fantasies are not logical or congruent with reality, but rather ideological-emotional arguments.