Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 Since a few days ago we had a short discussion on trimming posts and then i believe it was Chris(?) in the last day or so mentioned that he had trimmed a long post and jesting that maybe those of us on digest might think that post was still to long i have to say that, No you post was not to long. I am including one below though that is really bad and when a digest of 25 posts with several like this come through it's so much garbage that it isn't worth it. Sorry i don't mean to pick on you. This is just a very good example. Kathy ----------------------- Message: 22 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:43:39 -0600 From: " " <mhysmith@...> Subject: RE: Socialism and language , Marx's ideas were based on the premise that there are two classes of people. This is wrong and when you start on a false premise, everything from there on is not going to fit or work right. He wrote an " ideal " . Just as with capitalism, reality clarifies it all. I don't believe a " perfect " is possible in the human realm. Russia pursued his ideal and reality showed what his ideas were about in real life. Marx said the bourgeoisie was evil and the proletariat was good. So the Bolsheviks killed the bourgeoisie and put the proletariat in charge of the government. Marx said the evil lied in the Judeo Christian concept of individuality. So the Russians killed the Jews and Christians and burned their Bibles. They forbid the study of such a value system. When they finished setting up Marx's ideal, maybe as many as 20 million people had been murdered. Just because Marx was painting this sweet little picture of his Utopia where all basic needs for food, clothing and shelter were met, it was the reality of Marx's beliefs that led to such evil as Stalin did. It could certainly be argued that Marx's atheism led to justification of the practices of Stalin and the KGB, and underlies all the evil that ruled. In Marx's system, the government owned all and took care of the needs of the people. That is what Communism as opposed to Socialism is, and it is what the USSR did. In socialism, the people own the wealth and the profits are distributed equally out to them, thus one does not lavish in over abundance while another starves. While socialism is humanistic, it is not necessarily atheistic. Re: Socialism and language > > > - > > >Yes. The Definition. The one which you will find in most dictionaries. > >Language doesn't work very well if words mean different things to > >different people, so we have to standardize. > > The funny thing is we don't live in France, where they have state control > of their vocabulary and, I guess, their dictionary definitions, so > dictionary definitions vary. (I offered two different ones, both of > which supported my argument but which had a serious disagreement with each > other. I'll give them to you too.) Also, usage leads dictionaries. IOW, > dictionaries develop their definitions from usage after usages become > widespread. Another way to put it is that dictionaries lag usage, or even > more importantly, that dictionaries codify usage. So you can't ignore > usage in considering the meaning of a word, even though the purists among > us (and I'm sometimes one) might often wish you could. > > Anyway, here for your reading enjoyment are the definitions of socialism I > already posted. > > The Encarta definition of socialism: > > 1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory > or system in which the means of production and distribution > are controlled by the people and operated according to equity > and fairness rather than market principles > > The dictionary.com definition. > > 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization > in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned > collectively or by a centralized government that often plans > and controls the economy. > > Note that the Encarta definition states that the means of production and > distribution are owned and controlled by _the people_, clearly indicating > the people in aggregate, not some people or a few people as in a few > managers or owners or executives, and note that the second definition says > the same thing but also says that the means of production and distribution > could alternately be owned by a centralized government which " often plans > and controls the economy " . That latter, looser form of the definition is > uselessly broad in trying to describe specific political systems, which is > why I objected to it at some length and with no little specificity. > > Note that the USSR doesn't fit Encarta's definition at all, but does fit > the latter, uselessly loose half of dictionary.com's definition. As I > already conceded, a lot of people do call a lot of different systems with > centralized control of the economy socialist, but that's a definition >which > doesn't distinguish between a wide variety of radically different > governmental systems, so it's of little use except as a propaganda tool. > > >I can't comment on the views of the inventors of socialism, because I > >don't really know who they are. Are you talking about Marx and Engels? > > Yes, among others. > > >By the way, I may be wrong on this point, but wasn't the USSR held up as > >a model society by many American socialists throughout most of the > >twentieth century? > > The USA is held up as a model capitalist society by many American > capitalists. That doesn't make it so. Labeling something doesn't make it > so. I have no idea why you'd trust Hitler and Stalin to describe the > social systems they created. I also don't know why you'd trust a bunch of > people with no access to the USSR (and most of those socialists you refer > to, particularly during the earlier parts of the century when there was > some kind of genuine socialist movement here in the States) had no >reliable > information about it to describe it accurately. > > However, if you're going to trust practitioners and advocates, why not >look > at some actual modern-day socialists? None of them are advocating > dictatorships. It's all about group, collective control by workers. > > Now, I'm not advocating such a system, but I don't believe that political > debate is served by distorting reality either. > > >In his 1922 treatise, " Socialism, " Ludwig von Mises used the definition > >of socialism that you will find in most dictionaries today: > > > > " The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in > >the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is > >Socialism. All other definitions are misleading. " > > > >It seems unlikely that he would have been doing this in an attempt to > >smear democratic socialism by association with atrocities that had not > >yet taken place. > > You've made my case for me. Thank you. Notice a key phrase: " the > exclusive control of the organized community " . How do people suffering > under a brutal dictator control anything? Stalin was an individual, and > while I suppose you could say that the overall Soviet government, >including > the politburo and the KGB and so on, was " a " community (or more likely a > multiplicity of different interlocking communities) they were in no way > _the_ community. The Soviet _people_ didn't decide to send millions of > themselves off to work camps, and they didn't decide to execute millions > more in purges to assure Stalin's political hegemony. The very idea is >absurd. > > >The definition is both useful and appropriate, because it identifies the > >fundamental difference between liberalism and socialism, namely that > >under liberalism, production and its factors are controlled by market > >forces arising from voluntary transactions, while under socialism, they > >are controlled by political means. All forms of socialism, from > >democratic socialism to Stalinism to Nazism, share this essential > >characteristic. > > In that case you're misusing the term more than I thought, because you're > using it as an umbrella label by which you can effect a manichean division > of all political philosophies into two simple camps. Control of >production > and its factors by political means -- your definition of socialism -- > encompasses far more political systems than those which are encompassed by > the other definition you cited -- " All the means of production are in the > exclusive control of the organized community " . That latter definition, a > realistic one, BTW, certainly describes SOME kinds of political control, > but it is limited to communal control, not, for example, oligarchic or > dictatorial control. > > >or that fascism is just liberalism taken to its > >logical conclusion > > I've never actually run into anyone who's said that, but that's because > your manichean use of the word " liberalism " is extremely rare. With the > exception of conservatives demonizing their liberal opponents, people > generally mean something like dictionary.com's definition when talking of > liberalism in a broader sense. > > 1. The state or quality of being liberal. > a. A political theory founded on the natural > goodness of humans and the autonomy of the > individual and favoring civil and political > liberties, government by law with the consent > of the governed, and protection from arbitrary > authority. > > (By your definition, anarcho-libertarianism would seem to be the purest > expression of " liberalism " .) > > And people generally mean something like dictionary.com's definition when > speaking of fascism, too. > > 1. often Fascism > a. A system of government marked by centralization > of authority under a dictator, stringent > socioeconomic controls, suppression of the > opposition through terror and censorship, and > typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and > racism. > > In liberalism, the liberty of the individual is very important. In > fascism, the individual has no liberty except privileges granted by the > dictator and allowed at the dictator's whim. The two can never mean the > same thing. > > >Although all three are widely > >separated, it's undeniable that fascism, or national socialism, is more > >akin to democratic socialism than it is to liberalism. > > You're insisting on a non-dictionary use of the word " liberalism " . As far > as actual dictionaries and common usages go, lots of kind of regulations > and government programs are consistent with the philosophy of liberalism. > > >He opposed the kind of socialism which you claim is the only kind, > > No, there are many kinds of socialism, but they all involve some sort of > democratic control of the process. Sure, Stalin _said_ he was doing the > collective will of the people, but, see, he lied. He was a ruthless > dictator (and an expert and prolific propagandist) with little more regard > for the Soviet people than Hitler had for Jews. > > >but > >I'm sure that he was quite fond of his own brand of socialism. > > He was only socialist in your sense of the word, in which every possible > form and degree of governmental control over the economy is > socialist. I'll grant you that it might actually be useful to have a word > to specify that distinction, but " socialism " is not that word. You've > hijacked the word from other people who meant something much more specific > and granular. > > >Socialists frequently assert that entrepreneurs > >and managers are parasites who do not perform real work, > > Yes, well, there are nutjobs everywhere in the political continuum. (Not > to say, of course, that _some_ entrepreneurs and managers aren't >parasites.) > > >However, it is still true that > >all of the workers, in their roles as consumers, control the allocation > >of the means of production, and many of them do so as capitalists as > >well. As I last heard, some 50% of the American population owns stock. > > Owning stock doesn't necessarily confer any control whatsoever, only >owning > vast quantities of the right kind of stock. Nor is it meaningful to say > that consumers control the means of production by consuming. Collectively > they have some degree of influence, but it's mostly not under their > intentional control, and unlike the power wielded by huge concentrations >of > capital, it's extremely diffuse and subject to manipulation. The >statement > that consumers are in control also seems to suggest that they're the only > ones with control, which is absurd. > > > > > - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.