"Democratic Socialism is not Socialism"

More Than Mortal · April 11, 2016, 10:17:35 AM

Also, is your definition of socialism (paid for by the government, benefiting literally everybody) the exclusive definition?

Can something not operated by the government, and not benefiting everybody, be socialist to you?

Verbatim · April 11, 2016, 11:40:25 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 11, 2016, 10:12:24 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 11, 2016, 10:05:26 AM
Not everyone benefits from the activities of market contractors.
What? They clearly can (which is a condition you imposed)

Poor word choice.

By "can," I don't mean "there is a vague possibility that we could benefit from this." To me, that's not quite good enough, especially if it fails. No, what I meant was, "you have the option to benefit from this."

You can choose to get a vaccine, or you can choose not to (unless it's mandatory where you work).
You can retire and collect welfare checks, or you can work the rest of your life. If that's what you want to do--your choice.

A stimulus package isn't quite the same thing. The theory behind a stimulus is that increased employment and heavy government spending will help convalesce a dying economy. This would benefit everyone, but it's not socialist, because in order to build a healthier economy, there must be a concerted effort to do so.

Which is not to say that working isn't socialist--merely that, in order to be a true "benefit," the people shouldn't have to work for it. It's something they're entitled to, for the explicit purpose of maintaining a comfortable existence. Like medicine, education, infrastructure, and the basic needs of life. You shouldn't have to work for these things.

I mean, there's a better word than "benefit" for what I'm attempting to describe, but I can't think of it for whatever reason.

Anyway, the point is this: You can walk down a public sidewalk--you can't just walk into employment. So no, even under my revisionist definition, the ARRA would not count as an example of socialism. The fact that it essentially encouraged being as much of a capitalist shill as possible doesn't exactly help either.

And I realize I'm not articulating myself very well. I apologize for that. I've never had a chance to put these thoughts into words before, so I'm not as sharp as I could be.

More Than Mortal · April 11, 2016, 11:49:50 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 11, 2016, 11:40:25 AM

Like medicine, education, infrastructure, and the basic needs of life. You shouldn't have to work for these things.

I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at here.

There are proposals across the spectrum--most notably the negative income tax welfare system by Milton Friedman--which works towards this goal. Many libertarians believe that the welfare system should be organised so as to give people on no income enough money to live according to some minimum standard we agree on (usually 100pc of the poverty level).

Secondly, it's possible to give everybody the option of benefiting from something with extensive private provision. Most universal healthcare systems have a wide degree of private provision, from Germany to Singapore, and they tend to be pretty excellent systems (with Singapore's being the best in the world). Infrastructure, too, is largely funded by the government but again provisioned by private actors. Privately provisioned but publicly-funded education also tends to beat straight-up public school systems.

Proposals which include I) guaranteeing some basic standard of living and II) the efficient distribution of "public services" like healthcare and education can be found across the spectrum.

If I'm misunderstanding your point again, I apologise, but I would like to nail down the principles behind this discussion.

Verbatim · April 11, 2016, 12:16:27 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 11, 2016, 10:17:35 AM

Also, is your definition of socialism (paid for by the government, benefiting literally everybody) the exclusive definition?

Can something not operated by the government, and not benefiting everybody, be socialist to you?

It's not really a definition as much as it's a core tenet or ideal that I think socialism embodies. It does not embody socialism--it is embodied by socialism. The idea that people are entitled to a comfortable existence is also embodied my socialism to me.

Something that is embodied by socialism, to me, makes it socialistic or socialist. Because, as I explained last night, at the heart of socialism is a desire to create an equitable society of fairly-treated workers.

Hopefully that clears things up?

Meh T.Z.E · April 11, 2016, 12:37:24 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 11, 2016, 10:09:21 AM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 08:21:56 PM
There's a difference between what Marx believes about socialism and what he has defined as socialism. A lot of what he said is debatable, but some of it you can't argue without straying away from socialism into a new or separate economic theory.
Like democratic socialism.
Quote
Why wouldn't I be 'blustering and spitting venom', it's only self-defence: someone calls you an idiot, you have the option to call em an idiot right back, so there's nothing wrong with it. However, if you're the first, you have absolutely no right to complain.
Who says I'm complaining? I'm just explaining to you why your posts are such a chore to read through, because you're trying so hard to impotently puff your chest out at me. You're boring.

Democratic Socialism isn't socialism period. I said new or seperate, not a wannabe add-on.

Puff my chest out? *incredulity*

Boring? I suppose when you can't offer any serious rebuttal you could consider it boring to try to rehash your ill-conceived arguments. You've basically resigned yourself to a loss by now, considering you've offered nothing new.

Verbatim · April 11, 2016, 12:54:31 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 11, 2016, 11:49:50 AM

There are proposals across the spectrum--most notably the negative income tax welfare system by Milton Friedman--which works towards this goal. Many libertarians believe that the welfare system should be organised so as to give people on no income enough money to live according to some minimum standard we agree on (usually 100pc of the poverty level).

What you've basically described is the cross section of the Venn diagram of capitalism, libertarianism, and socialism. They all strive to create a society where people can live comfortably--the difference being, a socialist would view comfort as a birthright, whereas a capitalist might argue that it's a privilege.

America is not a socialist country, but there are elements of socialism within it. This has been my point for the whole discussion--I honestly don't know what's so troublesome about it. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who disagrees with me, besides that Mehtta zealot.

More Than Mortal · April 11, 2016, 01:01:29 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 11, 2016, 12:37:24 PM

Democratic Socialism isn't socialism period.

Yes, it is.

It's just that Bernie isn't one.

More Than Mortal · April 11, 2016, 01:02:59 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 11, 2016, 12:54:31 PM

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who disagrees with me

I think our disagreement is primarily terminological. The way I see it: things like public services and works provided by governments predate both capitalism and socialism as conceived systems. My issue with referring to them as socialist phenomena is that they seem to be more public phenomena, with socialism and capitalism jumping on the bandwagon.

Verbatim · April 11, 2016, 01:05:28 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 11, 2016, 12:37:24 PM

Democratic Socialism isn't socialism period. I said new or seperate, not a wannabe add-on.

Well, I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated yourself to be an authority on the subject. Neither have I, but until I'm soundly proven wrong (and not just by saying "NUH-UH"), democratic socialism will remain, in my eyes, a reasonably fungible alternative to socialism under our current political climate. You can keep crying no true Scotsman, but it won't make you right.

Quote from: Mehtta on April 11, 2016, 12:37:24 PM

Puff my chest out? *incredulity*

You're so clearly affronted by my refusal to acknowledge your self-appointed authority on the subject, and I think it's funny. You're trying so hard to assert your dominance over me, when you have none. You have appeals to authority, and appeals to authenticity. This is not substantive.

More Than Mortal · April 11, 2016, 01:10:03 PM

Let's clear this up, because the terms being discussed actually have very simple definitions.

Democratic socialism is having a democratic polity with a socialist economy. Bernie Sanders is not this.

Social democracy is having a democratic polity with a capitalist economy and significant government intervention in order to achieve some desired goal. Bernie Sanders is this.

Meh T.Z.E · April 11, 2016, 01:23:36 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 11, 2016, 01:05:28 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 11, 2016, 12:37:24 PM
Democratic Socialism isn't socialism period. I said new or seperate, not a wannabe add-on.
Well, I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated yourself to be an authority on the subject. Neither have I, but until I'm soundly proven wrong (and not just by saying "NUH-UH"), democratic socialism will remain, in my eyes, a reasonably fungible alternative to socialism under our current political climate. You can keep crying no true Scotsman, but it won't make you right.

Quote from: Mehtta on April 11, 2016, 12:37:24 PM
Puff my chest out? *incredulity*
You're so clearly affronted by my refusal to acknowledge your self-appointed authority on the subject, and I think it's funny. You're trying so hard to assert your dominance over me, when you have none. You have appeals to authority, and appeals to authenticity. This is not substantive.

"no True Scotsman"

Are you implying that I'm wrong because of this?

Assert Dominance? *incredulity*

Meh T.Z.E · April 11, 2016, 01:25:45 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 11, 2016, 01:01:29 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 11, 2016, 12:37:24 PM
Democratic Socialism isn't socialism period.
Yes, it is.

It's just that Bernie isn't one.

I understand this, I just didn't fully phrase it. I meant:

Democratic Socialism as it is being used in the modern day and in this thread is not real Democratic Socialism and not real Socialism.