quote:

Socialism has been demonized by the actions of those who say they are socialists. Pol Pot did much more deionizing than McCarthy ever could.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Socialism has been demonized by the actions of those who say they are socialists. Pol Pot did much more deionizing than McCarthy ever could.

100% correct, and yet that also does not invalidate the claim that the word "socialist" is generally misused by most political discussions involving Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

You are exactly correct. Socialism is defined as govt. ownership of the means of production.

No it is not. Socialism is a socio-economic system that holds that the means of production and distribution ought to be in the hands of the workers, not the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I once heard an English Professor, at Yale,

Is this meant to con us into believing that you not only went to college but to yale?


say that as a native English speaker the English I heard was most probably correct. We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U". Or, whether it's a lift or an elevator. I, therefore, have to tell you that your definitions are all wrong and you should probably learn the real definitions of the words you use before casting stones about. It's perfectly reasonable that men an women in the same house hear a different meaning to words used. It's also perfectly reasonable that you decide you disagree with the meaning of a word. Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning. We do just fine in our expressions and if you believe a word's meaning should be agreed upon before a discussion can continue you may offer up any strange definition you wish and ask for consensus.


You have been snorting cordite again haven't you?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U".

quote:

Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning.

quote:

Not true Dizzy. That you ascribe certain presumed social benefits to socialism doesn't change its historical (classical) definition. Socialism was, is and always has been defined as...govt. ownership of the means of production...simply.

quote:

We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U". Or, whether it's a lift or an elevator.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning.

But that's just it, I am not defining the meaning, you are. I am accepting the definition of those who coined the term. I base my definitions on the actual accepted definitions used within the study of political science, rather than those used by sensationalist media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning.

But that's just it, I am not defining the meaning, you are. I am accepting the definition of those who coined the term. I base my definitions on the actual accepted definitions used within the study of political science, rather than those used by sensationalist media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Of course socialism is central to the issue. Endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits, and the idea of rejiggering society to be more 'fair'.

Actually, not a core definition of socialism. Social democratic nations also seek to provide a safety net for the poor, disabled, and elderly, but do not own or control the means of production. Surely, you understand the distinction. Furthermore, a free market cannot function without the guarantee of order provided by a democratic or fascist government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

China (yes, I know you think its communist. Remember that under marxist theory socialism is the necessary precursor step, until all is perfected. Communist refers to the ultimate goal, not the current state.)

Nope, neither communist nor socialist. It is a mix of capitalist and fascist.

quote:

Cuba

Nope, merely an old fashioned totalitarian regime

quote:

Laos

I have to admit I am not familiar enough with how their economic infrastructure is organized to be able to say, so you may have this one, though from a brief review, though seeing as the US government has declared it to no longer be a Marxist-Leninist state, it may in fact be a socialist one (seeing as those two things are incompatible).

quote:

Vietnam

Nope, not that one either. It's

quote:

Zimbabwe - Although with them its hard to tell. Mugabe says he's a socialist - but you could argue its just a cult of personality aka dictator.

Nope, also just an old school totalitarian regime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And did the Oxford dictionary coin the term or develop the philosophy?
Did dictionary.com?
No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Of course socialism is central to the issue. Endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits, and the idea of rejiggering society to be more 'fair'.

Actually, not a core definition of socialism. Social democratic nations also seek to provide a safety net for the poor, disabled, and elderly, but do not own or control the means of production. Surely, you understand the distinction. Furthermore, a free market cannot function without the guarantee of order provided by a democratic or fascist government.

Arraunt nonsense. Do you suppose free markets cease to function under a monarchy?

Second point: I said endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits...

I did not say that promising social benefits was the definition of socialism. I said it was endemic in socialist nations. And of course, it is.
Anytime you abandon the rule of free markets, you imposing some other value scale by which to award good & services. The rule of money - where everyone that has it can purchase a good gives way to the rule of the mob, or the rule of croneyism.

Socialists say it is not 'fair' to allocate by money. Or it is too important not to nationalize, or.. so venezuala for example nationalizes a food distribution market.
Now, who decides who gets the food? Those in power.

I'll stick with capitlism .. thank you very much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And did the Oxford dictionary coin the term or develop the philosophy?
Did dictionary.com?
No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Of course socialism is central to the issue. Endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits, and the idea of rejiggering society to be more 'fair'.

Actually, not a core definition of socialism. Social democratic nations also seek to provide a safety net for the poor, disabled, and elderly, but do not own or control the means of production. Surely, you understand the distinction. Furthermore, a free market cannot function without the guarantee of order provided by a democratic or fascist government.

Arraunt nonsense. Do you suppose free markets cease to function under a monarchy?

Second point: I said endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits...

I did not say that promising social benefits was the definition of socialism. I said it was endemic in socialist nations. And of course, it is.
Anytime you abandon the rule of free markets, you imposing some other value scale by which to award good & services. The rule of money - where everyone that has it can purchase a good gives way to the rule of the mob, or the rule of croneyism.

Socialists say it is not 'fair' to allocate by money. Or it is too important not to nationalize, or.. so venezuala for example nationalizes a food distribution market.
Now, who decides who gets the food? Those in power.

I'll stick with capitlism .. thank you very much.

Free market have never worked in any form of government. Unless you think Nigeria successful.