Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Socialism on the rise?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="greenguzzi" data-source="post: 69258200" data-attributes="member: 380124"><p>I apologise for repeating myself (and others), but your question seems to suggest that we haven't yet explained it well enough. So here goes again.</p><p></p><p>There are two definitions of the word "socialist":</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One of them is requires an authoritarian government, the other does not.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One definition is pretty much unique to the USA, the other is not.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One definition is a popular one, the other one is a technical one.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The popular definition is completely different to the technical one.</li> </ul><p>(The popular/technical problem is similar to the problem some people have with the word "theory". Used in the popular sense the phrase "it's a theory" is interpreted as a weakness. But when used in the technical sense it is interpreted as a strength.)</p><p></p><p>So, the question "<em>how do you implement socialism without a strong authoritarian government?</em>" only makes sense if you are assuming the popular definition. If you assume the technical definition, then answer to the question should be reasonably obvious, or at least it won't be as confounding as the emoji you used would suggest.</p><p></p><p>To restate your question is each of the two ways:</p><p></p><p>Using the US Popular understanding of the "S" word:</p><p><em>How do you implement a societal and economic system in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government, without a strong authoritarian government?</em></p><p></p><p>Using the Rest of the World Technical understanding of the "S" word:</p><p><em>How do you implement <em>a societal and economic system</em> where the means of production is owned by the citizens<em> and is under democratic control, </em>without a strong authoritarian government?</em></p><p></p><p>Now I think we can all agree that the first question is truly confounding, and deserves the emoji that you used.</p><p>However the second one, not so much. In fact I would say that it doesn't make sense to ask the second question. An authoritarian government would be a hindrance to this (correct) understanding of socialism. It would flourish under a small government that gets out of the way, and simply protects the will of the people.</p><p></p><p>I'm fairly confident that those of us on this thread who speak up for socialism are only using the second (correct) definition. By all means use your popular definition elsewhere if it makes you comfortable. But I think it might be more effective and efficient if you at least consider that those posting here might be using the technical (correct) definition.</p><p></p><p>I'd like to thank whoever it was who pointed out that there may be a distinction between "capitalism" and "free-market". It's not something I'd thought of before. I will certainly be looking into it more. (It's gems like this that I'm here for.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="greenguzzi, post: 69258200, member: 380124"] I apologise for repeating myself (and others), but your question seems to suggest that we haven't yet explained it well enough. So here goes again. There are two definitions of the word "socialist": [LIST] [*]One of them is requires an authoritarian government, the other does not. [*]One definition is pretty much unique to the USA, the other is not. [*]One definition is a popular one, the other one is a technical one. [*]The popular definition is completely different to the technical one. [/LIST] (The popular/technical problem is similar to the problem some people have with the word "theory". Used in the popular sense the phrase "it's a theory" is interpreted as a weakness. But when used in the technical sense it is interpreted as a strength.) So, the question "[I]how do you implement socialism without a strong authoritarian government?[/I]" only makes sense if you are assuming the popular definition. If you assume the technical definition, then answer to the question should be reasonably obvious, or at least it won't be as confounding as the emoji you used would suggest. To restate your question is each of the two ways: Using the US Popular understanding of the "S" word: [I]How do you implement a societal and economic system in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government, without a strong authoritarian government?[/I] Using the Rest of the World Technical understanding of the "S" word: [I]How do you implement [I]a societal and economic system[/I] where the means of production is owned by the citizens[I] and is under democratic control, [/I]without a strong authoritarian government?[/I] Now I think we can all agree that the first question is truly confounding, and deserves the emoji that you used. However the second one, not so much. In fact I would say that it doesn't make sense to ask the second question. An authoritarian government would be a hindrance to this (correct) understanding of socialism. It would flourish under a small government that gets out of the way, and simply protects the will of the people. I'm fairly confident that those of us on this thread who speak up for socialism are only using the second (correct) definition. By all means use your popular definition elsewhere if it makes you comfortable. But I think it might be more effective and efficient if you at least consider that those posting here might be using the technical (correct) definition. I'd like to thank whoever it was who pointed out that there may be a distinction between "capitalism" and "free-market". It's not something I'd thought of before. I will certainly be looking into it more. (It's gems like this that I'm here for.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Socialism on the rise?
Top
Bottom