Marxism is not a central tenet of socialism, as Bertster said. Marxism deals with communism, which is not socialism.
I give up... Fuck it... It's not like either of us can change the fact that the government will continue to waste our money one way or another.Kmarion wrote:
First off the number I gave in expenditures did not include research. Reasearch/advancent, arguably the most important expense, only makes up about $45 per person (out of $7,439). By illustrating the added cost of a bureaucratically managed healthcare system you have somehow rationalized that giving them more control will fix the problem. The majority of research comes from private funding here (which the entire world takes advantage of). New medical technology/medicine pays a return and often lowers the cost. We all benefit from the research funded in part by the tax payer. I'm having a hard time understanding why you automatically assume that lobbied money in the name a of research is bad but by demanding that we all pay into a proven mismanaged government plan is ok. You are putting your faith in the very same corrupt politicians you claim to despise. That is bordering the definition of insanity.
Healthcare for everyone would be great... but the govt running it would be ridiculous... they couldn't even run a couple of restaurants...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … id=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … id=topnews
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-12-21 01:43:28)
Love is the answer
Government ineptitude is a fact of life.
Yer right, yet so many of you support govt. intervention in your lives. Hard one to figure out.nukchebi0 wrote:
Government ineptitude is a fact of life.
"ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Social responsibility from the federal government != socialismI was slightly unclear, Britain had some serious socialist tendencies and was on the verge of going full socialist as there was a revolution in the industrial sector, but it largely didn't pan out.Bertster7 wrote:
Marx used to get rather pissed off when people compared various systems of socialism to Marxism, including the systems put into place in Britain, his famous quote "If that is Marxism then I am no Marxist" is a great example of how a great number of people totally misinterpreted his work. Apparently you number amongst them.
As for the quote:
1 - I was going to look for some background on the quote, but honestly I can't even find that it is attributed to him. A little help...?
2 - In many respects people do not own their ideas once they take hold in the population at large. You may have started it, but that doesn't mean you continue to own it. The definitions may change to what people want them to be, and it would be a very reasonable circumstance for Marx not to be a Marxist. It has happened more than once throughout history, i.e. Carl Jung.
3 - Even so, I believe he would have said that because the revolution in England was not on the scale of his ideas in the least. England was not on the road to communism at all.
Is the exact quote. Could be why you couldn't find it (from a letter to Guesde).
England was not ever really on the road to communism. Which raises a very good point, that Marx only really believed in socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Pretty much the only thing Marxism brought to England was support for trade unions, which had been lacking from earlier British socialist doctrines, such as Owenism (which was anti-trade union) - probably the most widespread.
Marx himself acknowledged that there was no need for a revolution for Britain to embrace socialism, although he disapproved of many of the utopian socialist principles that British socialism was founded upon. British socialist economic principles however, were a huge influence for Marx (Marxist theory was essentially an amalgamation of British economics, French Socialist theory and German philosophy). It was British economists - Beveridge being by far the most important (read the Beveridge report!), that have influenced British socialism the most.
Using the term "full socialist" just makes you sound retarded (maybe even "full retard"). There is no such thing. If anything "full socialism" is utopian socialism which came before Marx and he disapproved of because it was unworkable (not like his beloved communism at all then - though he never found that out since he died before communism collapsed).
You really don't seem to grasp what socialism is at all. Here's a nice little wiki quote that sums it up fairly neatly:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There are a few key traits, like collective ownership in some form. You can't just point to universal health care and then say you're socialist, anymore than a communist country can make some sort of currency to be used on luxury items and call themselves capitalist. These sorts of very, very broad terms demand a certain foundation, and it's just silly when you guys dress up capitalism with health care and unemployment programs to call it socialism.Berster7 wrote:
You seem to think socialism is something exact and specific. It's not. At all.
It's not just healthcare and unemployment systems. It's much more on top of that. Nationalisation of services and utilities, mines, transport. Massive trade union movements. A minimum wage. Capped working hours. Free education (including either free or subsidised higher education). You know - social interventionism! To combat "Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness", social progress through government intervention backed by social insurance contributed to by all.Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other
The Labour Party (not new Labour)Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Could you name a few for me to look into?Berster7 wrote:
Many of the ones put in place by socialist governments. Which many countries in Europe have had a lot of over the past century. Not many countries in Europe currently have socialist governments, but the trend throughout Europe over the past 100 years has been to have socialist governments and their legacies live on.
La Parti Socialiste
For example.
I've already mentioned the reforms of the Atlee government. Here's a nice little wiki quote describing them (sorry about all the wiki quotes, it's easier than typing quotes out from books, which you probably won't be able to verify anyway - so wiki seems a nice solution):
A radical socialist program!?!?In 1945, the British Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, was elected to office based upon a radical, socialist program. Socialist and Communist parties dominated the post-war French, Italian, Czechoslovakian, Belgian, Norwegian, and other, governments.
Socialist parties dominating post-war Europe!?!?
None of that even slightly fits with Europe having predominantly socialist governments for much of the 20th century.
No. The owner knows full well it is a Ferrari. Some mug who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, thinks otherwise.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Ah, the owner is in denial that it's not a real Ferrari. The luxury car connoisseur (guess who ) says otherwise.Berster7 wrote:
No. It's not. It's a real Ferrari, as previously stated.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-12-21 04:25:52)
You seriously need to do some research on this FM because you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Don't say that, it's my job!Varegg wrote:
You seriously need to do some research on this FM because you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about ...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
What is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’ [If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist]Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Social responsibility from the federal government != socialismI was slightly unclear, Britain had some serious socialist tendencies and was on the verge of going full socialist as there was a revolution in the industrial sector, but it largely didn't pan out.Bertster7 wrote:
Marx used to get rather pissed off when people compared various systems of socialism to Marxism, including the systems put into place in Britain, his famous quote "If that is Marxism then I am no Marxist" is a great example of how a great number of people totally misinterpreted his work. Apparently you number amongst them.
As for the quote:
1 - I was going to look for some background on the quote, but honestly I can't even find that it is attributed to him. A little help...?
Engels, Letter to Eduard Bernstein (1882)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo … 02.htm#356
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Socialism in Britian is thanks to great thinkers like John Stewart Mills et al rather then Marx imo..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-12-21 14:35:37)
Of course. Marx didn't come up with socialism (or at least as far as I am aware it isn't attributed to him) but that doesn't mean there is "Marxist socialism" and "everyone else's socialism". He saw socialism as a means to a certain end, other people saw/see them as means to different ends or even the end itself. Still, socialism is socialism, no matter what the ethical or political motivation surrounding it.nukchebi0 wrote:
Marxism is not a central tenet of socialism, as Bertster said. Marxism deals with communism, which is not socialism.
Thanks to you and Kmarion for help on the quote specifics.Bertster7 wrote:
"ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste"
Is the exact quote. Could be why you couldn't find it (from a letter to Guesde).
Yes and yes. Marx is more about the process than the implementation.Bertster7 wrote:
England was not ever really on the road to communism. Which raises a very good point, that Marx only really believed in socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Pretty much the only thing Marxism brought to England was support for trade unions, which had been lacking from earlier British socialist doctrines, such as Owenism (which was anti-trade union) - probably the most widespread.
Marx himself acknowledged that there was no need for a revolution for Britain to embrace socialism, although he disapproved of many of the utopian socialist principles that British socialism was founded upon. British socialist economic principles however, were a huge influence for Marx (Marxist theory was essentially an amalgamation of British economics, French Socialist theory and German philosophy). It was British economists - Beveridge being by far the most important (read the Beveridge report!), that have influenced British socialism the most.
While "full" may have been a poor choice in adjective, there is definitely a line where a government with socialist tendencies becomes a socialist government. Just as someone can make retarded choices without being a retard, there is a line, albeit a blurry one between poor choices and a mental handicap.Berster7 wrote:
Using the term "full socialist" just makes you sound retarded (maybe even "full retard"). There is no such thing. If anything "full socialism" is utopian socialism which came before Marx and he disapproved of because it was unworkable (not like his beloved communism at all then ;) - though he never found that out since he died before communism collapsed).
I like this one better:Berster7 wrote:
You really don't seem to grasp what socialism is at all. Here's a nice little wiki quote that sums it up fairly neatly:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There are a few key traits, like collective ownership in some form. You can't just point to universal health care and then say you're socialist, anymore than a communist country can make some sort of currency to be used on luxury items and call themselves capitalist. These sorts of very, very broad terms demand a certain foundation, and it's just silly when you guys dress up capitalism with health care and unemployment programs to call it socialism.Berster7 wrote:
You seem to think socialism is something exact and specific. It's not. At all.It's not just healthcare and unemployment systems. It's much more on top of that. Nationalisation of services and utilities, mines, transport. Massive trade union movements. A minimum wage. Capped working hours. Free education (including either free or subsidised higher education). You know - social interventionism! To combat "Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness", social progress through government intervention backed by social insurance contributed to by all.Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other
Yes the definition is very broad, but by your definition practically every Western country not in anarchy is a socialist country. Just because the government steps in provide some level of protection for the people does not mean they are socialist. By your definition, the U.S. is very socialist. :rolleyes:Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth
Just because the government steps in at either very basic (unemployment, health) or very national (transportation system, common defense) levels does not make them socialist. If it were that would be the very definition of a useless word. It could better be replaced by "doesn't suck" or "is mildly competent".
I meant examples of their legacy that apparently make Europe so socialist today.Berster7 wrote:
The Labour Party (not new Labour)Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Could you name a few for me to look into?Berster7 wrote:
Many of the ones put in place by socialist governments. Which many countries in Europe have had a lot of over the past century. Not many countries in Europe currently have socialist governments, but the trend throughout Europe over the past 100 years has been to have socialist governments and their legacies live on.
La Parti Socialiste
For example.
I've already mentioned the reforms of the Atlee government. Here's a nice little wiki quote describing them (sorry about all the wiki quotes, it's easier than typing quotes out from books, which you probably won't be able to verify anyway - so wiki seems a nice solution):A radical socialist program!?!?In 1945, the British Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, was elected to office based upon a radical, socialist program. Socialist and Communist parties dominated the post-war French, Italian, Czechoslovakian, Belgian, Norwegian, and other, governments.
Socialist parties dominating post-war Europe!?!?
None of that even slightly fits with Europe having predominantly socialist governments for much of the 20th century.
"Damn communism sucks!"
"No dude China is doing really well."
"...China isn't communist."
"China was communist like 15 years ago."
"Well they aren't communist now are they? :|"
and just for the record China is more communist now that Europe is socialist.
Ohhhh, getting pretty defensive there. I think the owner doesn't want to face the music. :PBerster7 wrote:
No. The owner knows full well it is a Ferrari. Some mug who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, thinks otherwise.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Ah, the owner is in denial that it's not a real Ferrari. The luxury car connoisseur (guess who :awsm:) says otherwise.Berster7 wrote:
No. It's not. It's a real Ferrari, as previously stated.
I was just fixing to say I think we've already run the gamut of empty and unsupported insults in this thread. KindlyUzique wrote:
Don't say that, it's my job!Varegg wrote:
You seriously need to do some research on this FM because you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about ...
:mad:
and don't come back unless you have something interesting to say or some documentation of my errors. It shouldn't be hard, as I haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about.
How did this descend from something about American exceptionalism to an argument over the implementation of socialism?
Nice touch there little one ... you throw many fancy quotes around and obviously have done some studies and still you have the same stone age conception of what socialism is today rather than what is was when the idea was conceived ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I was just fixing to say I think we've already run the gamut of empty and unsupported insults in this thread. Kindly
and don't come back unless you have something interesting to say or some documentation of my errors. It shouldn't be hard, as I haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about.
But nothing I or anyone else says or document will change your mind seeing as you are to proud to admit you are wrong ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Wow. Apparently China is communist. Perhaps someone needs to read Communist literature and then visit the place. I went there last year and I can tell you it's far from fucking communist. It's a quasi-free market one-party police state. Cuba on the other hand, which I visited the year before that, was a lot closer - but still no cigar (pardon the pun).
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-22 10:30:42)
Well we won't know until we try now will we?Varegg wrote:
But nothing I or anyone else says or document will change your mind seeing as you are too proud to admit you are wrong ...
That or Europe isn't socialist.CameronPoe wrote:
Wow. Apparently China is communist. Perhaps someone needs to read Communist literature and then visit the place. I went there last year and I can tell you it's far from fucking communist. It's a quasi-free market one-party police state. Cuba on the other hand, which I visited the year before that, was a lot closer - but still no cigar (pardon the pun).
Europe has a hybrid system. Commonly referred to as a 'mixed economy' - the middle way between capitalism and socialism with elements of each, i.e. capitalism and socialism are each practised to a certain extent. It's not a binary yes-no thing. Sweden would be the prime example of a successful mixed economy welfare state.FM wrote:
That or Europe isn't socialist.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-22 10:41:36)
You didn't read the previous 7 pages?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well we won't know until we try now will we?Varegg wrote:
But nothing I or anyone else says or document will change your mind seeing as you are too proud to admit you are wrong ...
Those posts should be sufficient to convince anyone that there is a difference between the dictionary socialism and the socialism practice in many European countries today ...
Yes we don't practice socialism in the way you think it work or it says on wikipedia but it's still a offspring from it and still goes by the label ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I agree completely.CameronPoe wrote:
Europe has a hybrid system. Commonly referred to as a 'mixed economy' - the middle way between capitalism and socialism with elements of each, i.e. capitalism and socialism are each practised to a certain extent. It's not a binary yes-no thing. Sweden would be the prime example of a successful mixed economy welfare state.FM wrote:
That or Europe isn't socialist.
You do?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I agree completely.CameronPoe wrote:
Europe has a hybrid system. Commonly referred to as a 'mixed economy' - the middle way between capitalism and socialism with elements of each, i.e. capitalism and socialism are each practised to a certain extent. It's not a binary yes-no thing. Sweden would be the prime example of a successful mixed economy welfare state.FM wrote:
That or Europe isn't socialist.
After 7 pages you really do?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I never changed my mind. You never said that, you always went back the fact that Europe is socialist. For a time you almost got there with "capitalist socialism", but then you went back to this "Actually no ... when we speak of the socialism we practice it is the evolved version of it not the textbook version you believe it is, how many times must i repeat that for you?" bullshit, trying to make socialism out like it doesn't have a definition.Varegg wrote:
You do?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I agree completely.CameronPoe wrote:
Europe has a hybrid system. Commonly referred to as a 'mixed economy' - the middle way between capitalism and socialism with elements of each, i.e. capitalism and socialism are each practised to a certain extent. It's not a binary yes-no thing. Sweden would be the prime example of a successful mixed economy welfare state.
After 7 pages you really do?
Wonder if the thread has reached this point yet:
Goodwin's Law
"As an internet debate grows longer, the probability of an eventual agreement that Americans suck approaches one."
Goodwin's Law
"As an internet debate grows longer, the probability of an eventual agreement that Americans suck approaches one."
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I never changed my mind. You never said that, you always went back the fact that Europe is socialist. For a time you almost got there with "capitalist socialism", but then you went back to this "Actually no ... when we speak of the socialism we practice it is the evolved version of it not the textbook version you believe it is, how many times must i repeat that for you?" bullshit, trying to make socialism out like it doesn't have a definition.Varegg wrote:
You do?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I agree completely.
After 7 pages you really do?
You are unbelievable ... it's correct i didn't use the term "hybrid" socialism/capitalism because that is something Cam just made up.
So you are more than willing to accept a new out of the air term rather than quite a few others that has been commonly accepted for 30+ years and that has been used on many ocasions on this very forum by Cam, Bertster, myself and quite a lot of other members ...
That's just hillarious FM, you call my post bullshit when Cams post says exactly the same with a slightly different wording ... you are more hung up on semantics than the substance we are discussing tbh ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Hybrid is a made up word? Since the fuck when? It has a very important definition, specifically meaning that while there are some elements from each, it is NOT socialist.Varegg wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I never changed my mind. You never said that, you always went back the fact that Europe is socialist. For a time you almost got there with "capitalist socialism", but then you went back to this "Actually no ... when we speak of the socialism we practice it is the evolved version of it not the textbook version you believe it is, how many times must i repeat that for you?" bullshit, trying to make socialism out like it doesn't have a definition.Varegg wrote:
You do?
After 7 pages you really do?
You are unbelievable ... it's correct i didn't use the term "hybrid" socialism/capitalism because that is something Cam just made up.
So you are more than willing to accept a new out of the air term rather than quite a few others that has been commonly accepted for 30+ years and that has been used on many ocasions on this very forum by Cam, Bertster, myself and quite a lot of other members ...
That's just hillarious FM, you call my post bullshit when Cams post says exactly the same with a slightly different wording ... you are more hung up on semantics than the substance we are discussing tbh ...
You have not said it on this thread. As I have said, you almost got to what he was saying and then you went back to trying to say socialism = socialism + capitalism + whatever the fuck we want because we want to call ourselves socialist.
It's a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, especially when you start talking about countries that aren't even applicable to the OP. You take MY OP, you misinterpret terms to apply irrelevant situations to it, and then you base your arguments off of that. So yeah, when you start talking about random tangents because you misuse words it's not MY fault.