[prog2djent]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
I think you're being too prescriptive about socialism. Socialism has always been a broad church from the anarchists of Spain and Paris (which you seem to call real socialism) to the social democracies we see in Europe today.

Well, social democracy is only called socialism by right wing Americans and generally right wing people who think anything public sector/statist = socialism, socialists hate social democracy as much as the right do, and even democratic socialists who are the closest thing to social democracy (aside from orthodox keyensians) also think social democracy is in no way socialistic, aside from them, only social democrats who are either disingenuous (such as the French socialist party), using socialist as a marketing tool, or a not versed in the area, say it is (not think it is), and about like 2 or 3 people on this forum think say AND think it is.

Socialism is a broad church once you go further left of orthodox socialism, which is democratic socialism.

And there in lies another confusion, that democratic socialism and social democracy are the same thing just worded differently.

Democratic socialism is full on orthodox socialism aside from the fact it is not revolutionary (revolutionary socialism is an unorthodox, revisionist ideal added to socialism by the communists such as marx), and social democracy is, and always as been, welfare capitalism.

Simple.

[kka25]

(Original post by screenager2004)
She spoke of obligations and entitlements, but completely denied the fact that it was the system and social structure that she enforced that was dis-enabling the working classes to fulfil their obligations in the first place.

Mind elaborating?

*Very intrigued

[sconter]

(Original post by kka25)
Yes she's under the conservative party, but any reasons why she would want to abolish socialism all together, especially during her premiership?

*Asking because would want to know her political thought and views, and I'm still new to politics and economics.

because socialism is bad

[Classical Liberal]

The true meaning of socialism, the central control of the factors of production and distribution of goods and services, is a failure. Almost nobody takes that idea seriously any more.

Take the early Fabians. They were proper Leninst apeaser socialists. Now the Fabians have completely given up on such ideas and essentially look to manipulate capitalism for their own vision of social justice.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Well, social democracy is only called socialism by right wing Americans and generally right wing people who think anything public sector/statist = socialism, socialists hate social democracy as much as the right do, and even democratic socialists who are the closest thing to social democracy (aside from orthodox keyensians) also think social democracy is in no way socialistic, aside from them, only social democrats who are either disingenuous (such as the French socialist party), using socialist as a marketing tool, or a not versed in the area, say it is (not think it is), and about like 2 or 3 people on this forum think say AND think it is.

Socialism is a broad church once you go further left of orthodox socialism, which is democratic socialism.

And there in lies another confusion, that democratic socialism and social democracy are the same thing just worded differently.

Democratic socialism is full on orthodox socialism aside from the fact it is not revolutionary (revolutionary socialism is an unorthodox, revisionist ideal added to socialism by the communists such as marx), and social democracy is, and always as been, welfare capitalism.

Simple.

To be honest, the criticism of social democracy as not socialist by other socialist churches smacks to me of 'Ain't a real scotsman" type of argument. Socialism is a complex philosophy but boils down to a mixture of redistributive policies and public or collective ownership of enterprises.

Social democracy is merely an attempt to fulfil this philosophy through the democratic process rather than the revolution advocated by many other socialists. Just because modern social democrats don't advocate socialism to the degree of, say, the Workers Socialist Party doesn't mean they aren't socialist. It's all a matter of degrees.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
Socialism is a complex philosophy but boils down to a mixture of redistributive policies and public or collective ownership of enterprises.

You can forget about the non-emboldened part of that definition. The bold part is in a way right.

Socialism essentially advocates that production and the means of production should be ultimately controlled by those who are the actual producers, i.e. the workers, peasants, etc. While the vast majority of socialists do advocate that some sort of collective control should be part of this (mostly because most production processes involve a number of workers and couldn't work individually), there's nothing necessitating it.

Now, one thing that's always a debate around this is the state; can state control be 'worker control' or 'popular control'? Well, what should be obvious first (yet so many refuse to see it) is that there isn't an automatic line from one to the other - saying there is is saying that all states and state actions, without any exception, are in accordance with the will of its people.

Personally, I think the level of socialism in a production process is down to the level of democracy involved in the management of it. While some states may do this better than others, I think that the best and most socialist structure would mean the state not being involved at all.

Social democracy is merely an attempt to fulfil this philosophy through the democratic process rather than the revolution advocated by many other socialists. Just because modern social democrats don't advocate socialism to the degree of, say, the Workers Socialist Party doesn't mean they aren't socialist. It's all a matter of degrees.

Social democrats aren't interested in 'fulfilling the philosophy', as you put it. They explicitly do not want a socialist society, only to reform the capitalist one.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by anarchism101)
You can forget about the non-emboldened part of that definition. The bold part is in a way right.

Socialism essentially advocates that production and the means of production should be ultimately controlled by those who are the actual producers, i.e. the workers, peasants, etc. While the vast majority of socialists do advocate that some sort of collective control should be part of this (mostly because most production processes involve a number of workers and couldn't work individually), there's nothing necessitating it.

Now, one thing that's always a debate around this is the state; can state control be 'worker control' or 'popular control'? Well, what should be obvious first (yet so many refuse to see it) is that there isn't an automatic line from one to the other - saying there is is saying that all states and state actions, without any exception, are in accordance with the will of its people.

Personally, I think the level of socialism in a production process is down to the level of democracy involved in the management of it. While some states may do this better than others, I think that the best and most socialist structure would mean the state not being involved at all.



Social democrats aren't interested in 'fulfilling the philosophy', as you put it. They explicitly do not want a socialist society, only to reform the capitalist one.

Like I said, welfare capitalism.

All social democrats advocate is "whatever is happening with capitalism now, we want more nationalised industries, we want more power to the state, we want more welfare, more regulation, more democracy, more social liberalism, more social justice, we want to reform capitalism".

[anarchism101]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Like I said, welfare capitalism.

All social democrats advocate is "whatever is happening with capitalism now, we want more nationalised industries, we want more power to the state, we want more welfare, more regulation, more democracy, more social liberalism, more social justice, we want to reform capitalism".

Thing about social democracy is it's largely become unsustainable in modern society. It essentially started at the beginning of the 20th century, got going with the New Deal and had spread to most of the West by the end of WW2. It's problem was that it couldn't serve everyone, some people had to be marginalised for it to be affordable. But throughout the 1950s and 1960s all the Civil Rights and feminist groups (as well as others such as environmentalists, but those were the most significant) started becoming active and demanding the same rights. The 1968 uprising in France was the epitome of the old order coming crashing down. Then throughout the 1970s there were continuous economic crises, and in response to that, neoliberalism was introduced.

BTW, I'd have positively rates 80-90% of your posts on this thread if I could, but 'Please rate some other members before rating this member again.'

[chefdave]

(Original post by anarchism101)
You can forget about the non-emboldened part of that definition. The bold part is in a way right.

Socialism essentially advocates that production and the means of production should be ultimately controlled by those who are the actual producers, i.e. the workers, peasants, etc. While the vast majority of socialists do advocate that some sort of collective control should be part of this (mostly because most production processes involve a number of workers and couldn't work individually), there's nothing necessitating it.

Now, one thing that's always a debate around this is the state; can state control be 'worker control' or 'popular control'? Well, what should be obvious first (yet so many refuse to see it) is that there isn't an automatic line from one to the other - saying there is is saying that all states and state actions, without any exception, are in accordance with the will of its people.

Personally, I think the level of socialism in a production process is down to the level of democracy involved in the management of it. While some states may do this better than others, I think that the best and most socialist structure would mean the state not being involved at all.



Social democrats aren't interested in 'fulfilling the philosophy', as you put it. They explicitly do not want a socialist society, only to reform the capitalist one.

I feel that academia and the political sciences should make a greater effort toward seperating out the social from the private so it becomes clear when socialism is appropriate. There's definitely a case for adopting collective ownership and decision making for areas of our lives that are distinctly social in nature, i.e utlilities (as they're natural monopolies) and the law. If socialists were shrewd enough to drop the dogma, accept the free market, and only advance socialism where it's needed they might get taken seriously again.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by chefdave)
If socialists were shrewd enough to drop the dogma, accept the free market, and only advance socialism where it's needed they might get taken seriously again.

Some socialists do support a free market economy, but I do admit they're in the minority.

However, there are many reasons why most socialists oppose free markets. Some oppose it for moral reasons, some for economic ones, and a few (myself included) don't oppose them as such, we just don't think they exist. Anarchist David Graeber, for example, opposes the market economy because after studying economic history, he concluded that markets are a consequence of states. I don't agree totally, but I think he's largely right. No genuinely free market economy has ever existed anywhere.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Some socialists do support a free market economy, but I do admit they're in the minority.

However, there are many reasons why most socialists oppose free markets. Some oppose it for moral reasons, some for economic ones, and a few (myself included) don't oppose them as such, we just don't think they exist. Anarchist David Graeber, for example, opposes the market economy because after studying economic history, he concluded that markets are a consequence of states. I don't agree totally, but I think he's largely right. No genuinely free market economy has ever existed anywhere.

Like chef said he thinks some socialists should drop that dogma, and I think it's true for some on the right. Particularly Right-libertarians who, thanks to Ron Paul, are almost all split between anarcho-capitalists and the bare, bare bones minarchists who only think the state should provide courts, and a few who think it should also provide a military, police and all round rescue services aswell. The problem their is they can't see that the market does fail in some ways, there will always be those who can't compete, and end up right at the bottom, where market orientated socialists and anarchists such as georgists, mutualists and youself would advocate welfare (I think) right-libertarians think charity would take care of these people, which is a stupid idea.

What I find a bit off putting about market socialists who lean quite far to the left is that they advocate getting rid of capital and profit, and you can't serve anybody's needs when you don't have prices, which serves as an even bigger blow to centrally planned fans like communists.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by heyhey922)
America had 8 years of tax cuts and deregulation, and look what happened there

"America of old"

Regarding America's problems today: They spend roughly 10,000$ per taxpayer per year on military. No matter how good your economic policy is, that is not sustainable.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Well, social democracy is only called socialism by right wing Americans and generally right wing people who think anything public sector/statist = socialism, socialists hate social democracy as much as the right do, and even democratic socialists who are the closest thing to social democracy (aside from orthodox keyensians) also think social democracy is in no way socialistic, aside from them, only social democrats who are either disingenuous (such as the French socialist party), using socialist as a marketing tool, or a not versed in the area, say it is (not think it is), and about like 2 or 3 people on this forum think say AND think it is.

Socialism is a broad church once you go further left of orthodox socialism, which is democratic socialism.

And there in lies another confusion, that democratic socialism and social democracy are the same thing just worded differently.

Democratic socialism is full on orthodox socialism aside from the fact it is not revolutionary (revolutionary socialism is an unorthodox, revisionist ideal added to socialism by the communists such as marx), and social democracy is, and always as been, welfare capitalism.

Simple.

See, I don't see democratic socialism as non-socialist. Agreed, it is not as extreme as other socialist ideologies and incorporates elements of capitalism, but it does implement socialist ideologies (even if we only take the strict narrow definition as being collective ownership of production). Taking Germany as an example, social democracy has meant that all company boards are answerable to another board that consists of, amongst others, representatives of the workforce. This may not be out and out collectivisation, but it is a successful method of letting the workforce help run the company and I dare anyone to suggest it is a solely capitalist model.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
But that isn't really the case. It allows a small minority to benefit.
Now, you can argue that it does allow the money made to be spend on things like the NHS etc etc, which do benefit everyone. But that is because they are SOCIALIST ideas.

Look at the conditions of the poor people in the UK today and compare them with a couple hundred years ago. You don't see them as having benefited in any way?

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Раскольников)
Look at the conditions of the poor people in the UK today and compare them with a couple hundred years ago. You don't see them as having benefited in any way?

And lets think of some of the reasons they have benefited:
Universal healthcare
Universal education
The NMW
Benefits and such
Various employee and consumer protection laws (that totally fly in the face of capitalism)
Etc etc etc.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
And lets think of some of the reasons they have benefited:
Universal healthcare
Universal education
The NMW
Benefits and such
Various employee and consumer protection laws (that totally fly in the face of capitalism)
Etc etc etc.

So if, in a situation similar to that of 200 years ago, these things were suddenly introduced would they work? How would we have been able to pay for all these things at once?
Many of the laws are only possible as a result of the country developing, if current restrictions on working hours were introduced at that time the country would just collapse as we hadn't developed enough to be able to survive without relying on intensive labour. It is through our development as technology advances and production becomes more efficient that we have been able to be in the position we are in today.

On a side note - why do you consider the NMW as having been beneficial for people (and on enough of a scale to be included with healthcare/education and all that)?