Socialism, is it really any good?

[khazalid]

great documentary on the origins of neo-conservativism and individualism:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ry+of+self

[PLAYER57832]

What you've just said is better.
But note how you have changed your definition of sociaslism. It was this :

"Socialism is an economic idea. Basically, it says that we pay the government and then the government takes care of various services"

which is not the same as what you just posted.
I'm glad i gave you the incentive to introduce some rigour into your thinking.

and btw, many College professors don't know what they are talking about -particularly if thay are Sociologists.

The original definition is the way the term socialism is used in the US. People can own things, but have to share through taxes to more or less equalize things. the term "communism" (small "c") is used to mean the state owns everything and "everything is shared equally" and Communism capitol C , is used to mean the political system where a committee of elite (oops, communist party NON elite) decide what everyone else gets to do.


This "pure" definition, as you noted doesn't really exist, so socialism is used to mean systems that have a high amount of support for individuals, such as Europe.

[Snorri1234]

I'd like to know first off what the unemployment rates are in Europe. That, and what is your trade balance. Better still, your National Debt.

Wikipedia is your bitch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

I like to know why you'd attribute this to socialism solely, as some of the ones on top are pretty socialist. (Or what you silly americans call socialist at least.)

[Snorri1234]

I'd like to know first off what the unemployment rates are in Europe. That, and what is your trade balance. Better still, your National Debt.

If your interested in socialism, you should check the unemployment rates, trade balance and (if they have any) National Debt of Scandinavian countries.

....which aren't socialist.

While they are not socialist just like France or Germany aren't socialist, Scandinavian countries would probably be considered very socialist. The Norwegian government for example controls 31.6% of the companies (maybe even higher as some companies aren't "public" or whatever), the country also has the 2nd highest GDP in the world (after Luxembourg ofcourse). Their healthcare system also peforms rather good.

Most Scandinavian countries seem to have found a rather good mix between socialism and non-socialism (which is not entirely the same as capitalism), so if ever there was an example that countries should aspire too...

[radiojake]

What's your point, Jenos? All systems are corrupt, as power corrupts absolute

NO. Get it right, or don't bother.
You are misquoting the late 19th century historian Lord Acton, who claimed that:
"All power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So (assuming Acton is right) power doesnt corrupt "absolute" -only absolute power does that.

Thank you suggs (and norse earlier) - but I wasn't going for that full quote.. i was paraphrasing slightly. Thank you for deciding to go the pedantic route and trying to catch me out with a mis-quote rather than responding to my argument. - But whatever

[Nappy crier]

Jake..

I don't wish to worry you but....

Tommorow I'm heading over to you!

[Snorri1234]

What you've just said is better.
But note how you have changed your definition of sociaslism. It was this :

"Socialism is an economic idea. Basically, it says that we pay the government and then the government takes care of various services"

which is not the same as what you just posted.
I'm glad i gave you the incentive to introduce some rigour into your thinking.

and btw, many College professors don't know what they are talking about -particularly if thay are Sociologists.

I think the main problem here is that player was talking about it from an american point of view. Liberals in the USA are the ones who want the country to adopt "socialist" policies.

[PLAYER57832]

What you've just said is better.
But note how you have changed your definition of sociaslism. It was this :

"Socialism is an economic idea. Basically, it says that we pay the government and then the government takes care of various services"

which is not the same as what you just posted.
I'm glad i gave you the incentive to introduce some rigour into your thinking.

and btw, many College professors don't know what they are talking about -particularly if thay are Sociologists.

Except this came from economics, history & political science professors. All very respected within their fields, all with more than the usual PhD's to back up their credibility.

No, there is always some disagreement amongst academics. But, really, the "pure" definitions, while technically correct just don't and cannot exist in society. So, what I gave originally was more of the "working" definition. I also think this is a case where the definition itself is undergoing a shift ... for a lot of reasons. And, while I certainly and absolutely believe in dictionaries as "steadiers" in language, language does shift over time.

Liberal, in particular has shifted. AND, the definition of "liberal" in the UK and in the US are not the same at all, from what I have seen.

[radiojake]

Jake..

I don't wish to worry you but....

Tommorow I'm heading over to you!

ah, i hope you enjoy it! I do remember you saying something about the NSW coast, so unless you come further south to melbourne ill probably miss you unfortunately - but please do let me know if i will have the pleasure of being in the same city as you!!!

lots of love xoxoxo

[Iliad]

Jake..

I don't wish to worry you but....

Tommorow I'm heading over to you!

it begins

[nigger_obama]

<twilldo edit>

I'm a racist and I got myself banned.

Hurray for racism!

</edit>

[Napoleon Ier]

What you've just said is better.
But note how you have changed your definition of sociaslism. It was this :

"Socialism is an economic idea. Basically, it says that we pay the government and then the government takes care of various services"

which is not the same as what you just posted.
I'm glad i gave you the incentive to introduce some rigour into your thinking.

and btw, many College professors don't know what they are talking about -particularly if thay are Sociologists.

Except this came from economics, history & political science professors. All very respected within their fields, all with more than the usual PhD's to back up their credibility.

No, there is always some disagreement amongst academics. But, really, the "pure" definitions, while technically correct just don't and cannot exist in society. So, what I gave originally was more of the "working" definition. I also think this is a case where the definition itself is undergoing a shift ... for a lot of reasons. And, while I certainly and absolutely believe in dictionaries as "steadiers" in language, language does shift over time.

Liberal, in particular has shifted. AND, the definition of "liberal" in the UK and in the US are not the same at all, from what I have seen.

The word "liberal" means "vaguely leftist" to the popular masses, but within fields of proper intellectual debate, "liberal" can only be taken to mean in the neo-classical tradition of Smith, Bastiat and Friedman.

[Twill]

Apologies for the intrusion - user has been banned

Twill

[Napoleon Ier]

Apologies for the intrusion - user has been banned

Twill

All Hail Comrade Twill, protecting us from the subversion of the Kulak enemies of the state!

Got any Trotsykists you're planning on ratting out today, Dzerzhinsky?

[suggs]

Yes, Nap is closest to the truth.
A necessary, fundamental tenant of Liberalism is free trade (as opposed to Conservatives, who were traditionally in favour of Corn Laws and protection).
Friedman is a liberal scholar in the classical traditon.

But as Player points out, the problem is that the defintions have changed over time, and in different countries.
J.S.Mill and Gladstone, whilst the very epitomy as Liberals in their day, would now be regarded as very right wing (minimal government, balanced budgets etc). Although in fact Gladstone started Liberalism's slide to the left with such legislation as the Education Act of 1870 (hmmm-that date could be wrong, bugger), the beginning of the State taking control of national, social policy (or interfering in peoples lives, however you look at it)

In the UK today, the Liberals are the only left wing party, which is quite a political journey.
However, Nap is fundamentally correct - Friedman et. al are "pure" liberals - and yet, that great Liberal Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, would have had ONLY the belief in free trade as common ground.

Complex shit, dude.

[radiojake]

The theories of Friedman gave him the Nobel prize; - they gave Chile General Pinochet

[Napoleon Ier]

The theories of Friedman gave him the Nobel prize; - they gave Chile General Pinochet

Awesome...they also should have given Pinochet a nobel prize.

[jonesthecurl]

We've had a lot or arguing about terms on this thread.
Arguing, in fact, about what we are going to argue about.
So how about the original poster tells us what they meant by the question?

Jenos, tell us what YOU think socialism is, and then I'm sure we'll all have an opinion about whether that, whatever that is, is "really any good".

[radiojake]

The theories of Friedman gave him the Nobel prize; - they gave Chile General Pinochet

Awesome...they also should have given Pinochet a nobel prize.

Whats that I hear? Sounds like the clanking of a pot being stirred - Too bad there won't be any bites -

[Napoleon Ier]

The theories of Friedman gave him the Nobel prize; - they gave Chile General Pinochet

Awesome...they also should have given Pinochet a nobel prize.

Whats that I hear? Sounds like the clanking of a pot being stirred - Too bad there won't be any bites -

Cara al sol, con la camisa nueva....

[radiojake]

The theories of Friedman gave him the Nobel prize; - they gave Chile General Pinochet

Awesome...they also should have given Pinochet a nobel prize.

Whats that I hear? Sounds like the clanking of a pot being stirred - Too bad there won't be any bites -

Cara al sol, con la camisa nueva....

The French board is in another area - in the meantime I'm going to have to get some poorly translated attempt of French from some free internerd translator site.. yay

[Snorri1234]

That doesn't look very french, jake.

[Napoleon Ier]

Bugger...just realised that's Franco's hymn, not Pinochet's. Oh well, close enough.

[radiojake]

That doesn't look very french, jake.

crumbs

[jonesthecurl]

That doesn't look very french, jake.

Yes, try being clueless in the right language...