Posted on 12/13/2001 7:37:16 AM PST by John SBM
Yes, you have questioned the utility of the word "socialism" - a philosophy which advocates collective ownership/distribution of property - to describe and chracterize situations where the government....you guessed it....owns and distributes property (to various degrees). Further, you have continually pointed at a definition of socialist THEORY as if it provides some sort of accurate, ironclad guideline for how to label a country "socialist" IN PRACTICE. The net effect is that the socialist content of all countries is magically defined away. Indeed, the net effect is that it becomes impossible for me to characterize any country, in any real or actual situation, as "quite socialist".
This is what I meant by saying you are effectively disallowing use of the word. You probably already understand this, though.
referring first to its literal meaning, and also to its common usage, whereas you have--by your own account--adopoted a meaning which is neither.
There is a point in here which deserves a "touche" from me. Yes, you are right that a goodly part of my argument is to say that there is something wrong with how the word "socialism" is commonly used. I have been arguing that the definition has been deflated so much that in the minds of most, nothing is ever "socialist". Jointly, I have been arguing that a large number of practices (high taxation, regulation) are indeed deserving of the term "socialist", despite the common understanding. Indeed, this is also what the originator of this thread was claiming. As well as several respondents to this thread. We are all making a claim: that there is a bit of "denial" in the average person's refusal to call a spade a spade.
You are free to dispute this claim, of course. Especially now that you understand our usage and understanding of the term. It doesn't appear to me that you have done so. Instead you pointed at the dictionary and argued semantics; you pointed at a definition of socialist theory and said that the US doesn't live up. Which is true enough, but doesn't even address the main point being made in this thread.
But you are right, somewhere in all this argument is a claim about the common understanding of the term - namely, that it is flawed. Many, myself included, are engaging in an endeavor to persuade that this is so. Is that okay? Again, you are free to disagree with this claim, or to be unmoved by this persuasion. But to argue that such attempts at persuasion are somehow automatically invalid because they go against common usage?
But then, what are arguments for in the first place? :)
Tax incentives are socialism in your book.
I could have sworn I characterized them as "slightly fascist". Maybe I should go back and check....
Is it your contention that by classifying them so, people will be less inclined towards socialism?
I don't know. Maybe not. You are right: maybe it would just make people realize that they like a little bit of socialism. That's okay with me. I'm just campaigning for honesty, here. It grates on me when people refuse to call manifestly socialist programs "socialist". Why the refusal? Why not just come clean, and admit, "yes, Social Security is a socialist program"?
Well you did go on to say "fascism is but a slightly tweaked version of socialism anyway."
Why not just come clean, and admit, "yes, Social Security is a socialist program"?
Hmm, that depends. What do you mean when you say "socialist"? :-P
... severe economic and social regimentation...
Emphasis mine, of course. Next I go and look up "regimentation", which leads me to the verb "regiment":
2 a : to organize rigidly especially for the sake of regulation or control b : to subject to order or uniformity
Emphasis mine, again.
Now imagine this scenario: The government tells you it will take a percentage of your salary. However, they also tell you (kind souls that they are) that they have set up a "program" whereby you can set aside part of this salary and it will not be taken. Here's how you do it: First you obey Rule A. Then you Obey Rules B, C, and D. Make sure to follow Rules F, G, and also H through Z. Also be sure to check that your employer is all this time following Rules 7A through 114D. Under these conditions, then, you will be allowed to set aside at most X of your dollars into a plan of a government-approved (i.e. satisfying Rules XIV-7.A through LCXIII-90210.G) nature.
Is this not "regulation or control"?
Also, the government reminds you that everyone's plan, and every employer, is subject to these Rules. No being creative, no going off and doing your own thing or taking risks or being an entrepreneur with your money: to qualify for 401k everyone simply must follow these Rules.
Is this not, objectively speaking, an imposition of "order or uniformity"?
So, I thank you for helping to substantiate my claim that plans such as 401k are "slightly fascist". You have done a great service.
Hmm, that depends. What do you mean when you say "socialist"? :-P
Collective ownership/distribution of property, or conversely, the negation of individual property rights. Was this not clear?
P.S. Thank you for all the unsolicited praise for how much intelligence and expertise I have. I appreciate it. These are very nice things to say. Thanks again.
1. What other definition did you have in mind?
2. If your answer to 1. is, The Dictionary's Definition Of Socialist Theory, then I must ask once and for all: Is anything "socialist"? Has anything, or any country, ever been "socialist"? Examples would be nice. Thanks.
If by "slightly" you mean imposed regulation minus the autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader and forcible suppression of opposition, then I guess you are right, but that's putting a lot of weight on one little "slightly". Most people would think of fascist as meaning a little bit more than a tax incentive/business regulation. Hell, by your way of looking at things, a local ordinance regarding shop awnings is "slight" fascism. Oh, wait, don't tell me, it's a sliding scale. We are all fascists, too.
Collective ownership/distribution of property, or conversely, the negation of individual property rights. Was this not clear?
Not really. I don't think it is clear that a payroll tax is a negation of property rights, or collective ownership of property. But I am sure you are right about your own definition, and said so in the previous post. P.S. Thank you for all the unsolicited praise for how much intelligence and expertise I have. I appreciate it. These are very nice things to say. Thanks again.
My understanding is that the USSR was socialist in its aims. To what extent they achieved their aims I do not know. Same goes for China. And Cuba. My understanding is that they do not recognize private property, everything is state owned, employment is derived from the state, etc. I could be wrong. But that is my understanding.
Well, of course. Should I say, "economically fascist"? Would that help you understand?
Oh, wait, don't tell me, it's a sliding scale.
Does the concept of a sliding scale, or the notion that an adjective is "relative", confuse you?
I don't think it is clear that a payroll tax is a negation of property rights
Payroll tax...payroll tax....Oh right, the Social Security tax. Um, let me explain, then.
I am a person. Somewhere across the room is another person, called an "employer". Me and him make an arrangement: I will perform some work or service for him, and in return, he will give me a sum of money. X dollars per time period.
Now the government comes along. They inform us that if we are going to do this thing, both the "employer" and I will have to give 7.6% (is that what it is?) of those X dollars to the government. Whereas according to the original terms of our agreement I would have gotten X dollars, now I will only be receiving something like X - .15X dollars. Those other .15X dollars are going to the government.
Manifestly and objectively speaking, the government took some property away from me. It negated my property rights, to the tune of 15% of it (or so...my math may be rusty). And now, it (or, "the collective"), has that property - owns and controls it, to do with it whatever it wishes.
To say anything else is intellectually dishonest.
In its aims??? But now you are only speaking of motive! I thought this adjective "socialist" had to be measured, objectively. How does one measure "aims"?
It sure appears to me as if what you are admitting is that by your definition, no countries are actually socialist. All you are doing here is talking vaguely about "aims". But how am I to know that the USSR was really "socialist in its aims"? In fact, who's to say that the USSR was any more "socialist in its aims" than is the US? Hmmm.....
My understanding is that they do not recognize private property, everything is state owned, employment is derived from the state, etc. I could be wrong.
My understanding is that all those countries you mentioned allowed private ownership of some things, to at least some extent. (Unless you can give me a concrete counterexample.) Therefore none of those countries were or are truly socialist....at least by the definition you would have us use.
This clears lots of things up for me. Thanks.
But in reality the employer passes this cost along to the employee in the form of lower wages. And?
Whereas according to the original terms of our agreement I would have gotten X dollars, now I will only be receiving something like X - .15X dollars. Those other .15X dollars are going to the government.
But we both knew that going into it. It's called a tax. And?
Manifestly and objectively speaking, the government took some property away from me. It negated my property rights,
That's the part you haven't demonstrated. Somehow you equate a tax with a negation of property rights. The Founding Fathers somehow believed you could have both property rights, and, as they fought for, taxation with representation. Were they mistaken? Were they the precursors to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini? I suppose a parkway toll is a negation of property rights, too? Is there anyway for a government to collect and spend taxes without becoming fascist?
And now, it (or, "the collective"), has that property - owns and controls it, to do with it whatever it wishes.
Well, how should taxes be collected? Who should decide how taxes are spent?
No. I am saying I don't know to what extent they achieved their goals.
So what? Does this change the reality of the thing? Does "knowing that going into it" change the fact that the government is taking away 15%?
It's called a tax.
I see. So if you use different words to describe the same thing, you change the reality of that thing. Got it.
And?
"And" nothing. The government took away 15% of property you would have otherwise had, that's all. Which is, objectively speaking, a violation of property rights, pure and simple. There's no "and"; the point has been made - you're not even really disputing it. You're just saying "and?".
Well, how should taxes be collected? Who should decide how taxes are spent?
Maybe nothing should be done differently at all! I haven't even said I disagree with the existence of Social Security or 401k's or anything else, anywhere on this thread. (Were you under the impression that I had?) All I've been saying is that they are socialist (or fascist, if the shoe fits), and ought properly to be described as such. Ok?
Currently, only China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam still label themselves socialist countries while thirty states of East Europe and ex-USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) no longer claim socialism. Except North Korea and Cuba, most of these countries are undergoing drastic political and economic reform. Unavoidably, their laws and legal systems are in post-socialist transition.
From http://law.wustl.edu/Infores/Library/Guides/Socialist-Guide.html
After Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin became the leader of the world’s first socialist state. Although he made errors and had some serious shortcomings, nevertheless it was under his practical and theoretical leadership that socialism in the Soviet Union was built and consolidated against the opposition of bourgeois and anti-Leninist elements both outside and inside the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (hereafter referred to as the CPSU).
--from http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wpnz/the%20Restoration%20of%20Capitalism%20in%20Russia.htm
NON EUROPEAN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES
China,Cuba,Mongolia,North Korea,Vietnam
from http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/8398/tr-asoc.html
But by the definition of socialist theory that you cited ("any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"), and the way you have been applying it, unless these countries achieved their socialist goals completely, one cannot call these countries "socialist".
So unless you are going to claim that USSR or China or Cuba achieved complete and total collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (and you have already admitted that you don't know), you simply must admit that those countries were/are "not socialist", by your usage.
To do anything less would be to contradict yourself, and the dictionary definition of "socialism" (as you have been applying it to countries, on this thread).
RUBBISH. A tax is not a violation of property rights. That's total nonsense. Flapdoodle. Rot. Abuse of language. I love tax cuts, don't get me wrong. But your views are a complete twisting of the English language. As I said, to you, a local ordinance on shop awnings is fascism, and a $2 bridge toll is socialism and probably fascism too. YOu have done NOTHING to show how a tax is a violation of your rights. Maybe you think if you say it enough times, it will suddenly make itself evident.
None of those countries mentioned on those various websites - whether they "label themselves" socialist or not - ever, or will ever, achieve complete and total collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Therefore none of them are socialist. And the ones that "label themselves" socialist are lying because they are (just like me) going against the dictionary definition of the term.
(I'm starting to see why application of the dictionary definition is so appealing to you.... It's very easy to apply a definition of an adjective which is so narrow that it excludes everything ;)
Because it's called a "tax", right? Right. Got it.
YOu have done NOTHING to show how a tax is a violation of your rights.
I had, or would have had, a certain amount of property. The government enacts, or collects, a "tax" on it. Now I have less property. Plainly, now my right to that property has been violated to some extent.
What part of this don't you understand?
Our Country's founders knew that, at some point in time, that it may become necessary for us to wage another war hence, the quote about the tree of liberty having to be watered with the blood of patriots from time to time.
Very, VERY Well stated !!
(...as always...)
That's why, if my memory doesn't fail me, there is a portion of the U.S. Constitution that allows us (American Citizens) to close up shop on any existing government (if they over step their bounds) and start-up a new one....
Quite frankly...I have no problem with firing the lot of the present 'Elected' Morass and dropping back to the Constitution and the original 10 Amendments and starting from there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.