Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:When taken outside of an absolute context the term socialism loses all meaning. It's not a term that withstands varying degrees. Note that everyone using it in modern times uses it wrong and typically either derisively or faux philosophically. It's modern use is little different than that of populisms, the difference however is that socialism actually had a meaning.

Relative terminology when used in a derisive aspect is a race to the bottom with little substance or meaning. A serial killer could refer to a conservative as a socialist (to kill without purpose for ones self is purely against the ideals of socalism) but that doesn't mean the comment makes sense. Not all words should be relative, and the common usage of a term, while pervasive, is not always correct, nor should it be defended as such.

I'm actually making a distinction between three uses of the word, not two. The first being its applicable to anything that's not the most extreme form of anarcho-capitalism (and even that is up for debate, as there's not going to be universal consensus over what "true", 100% anarcho-capitalism would even entail), the second being applicable to a subjectively large amount of government control in the economy, and the third being necessarily an evil or ineffective policy.

As you pointed out, the third definition is a poor one. I maintain that the first is no better, though; it encompasses nearly everything, and means that the word "socialist" is nearly meaningless. There are many people who consider themselves socialists, and most of them wouldn't support a society where nearly everything is privately owned (but with a sliver of public intervention; the occasional fire department or something). The second definition isn't going to tell you absolute facts, any more than "old" is going to tell you a person's age, but it gives an idea of where something broadly falls, which is more than can be said of either other definition.

I maintain that the first is no better, though; it encompasses nearly everything, and means that the word "socialist" is nearly meaningless.

Bingo. The terms true meaning is essentially a meaningless expression likened to that of "governance for the people". The term socialism outside of the context of direct comparisons between political theory or theorists is by definition and nature subverting or caustic. The term has only a useful relative meaning, and it's only use is to lambast or iconify. It's not a word that should be used commonly if at all.

The second definition isn't going to tell you absolute facts, any more than "old" is going to tell you a person's age, but it gives an idea of where something broadly falls, which is more than can be said of either other definition.

Except by common use and logical statement the "Second definition" isn't any more descriptive than the first or third outside of what is directly inferred by the speaker at the time given the audience and the place. Comparing two social things within a socialist government within a socialist country on a socialist planet isn't helped when your saying that "One is more socialist than the other". Most languages on this planet are pretty broad and there are vastly better terms to use. Definition number two is prototypically a polite version of definition number three.

ShumaGorath wrote:Bingo. The terms true meaning is essentially a meaningless expression likened to that of "governance for the people". The term socialism outside of the context of direct comparisons between political theory or theorists is by definition and nature subverting or caustic. The term has only a useful relative meaning, and it's only use is to lambast or iconify. It's not a word that should be used commonly if at all.

You're never going to get a hard grasp on "conservative", "liberal", progressive", or "capitalist" either. But that's the nature of using single words to describe complex ideas. If replaced the words with something else the same problems would reappear.

You can say that people should thus abandon the practice entirely, but I don't think that's going to happen. It's a necessary evil, caused by the lack of time people have to extrapolate on their beliefs and the lack of effort people will put into understanding complex ideas.

Except by common use and logical statement the "Second definition" isn't any more descriptive than the first two outside of what is directly inferred by the speaker at the time given the audience and the place. Comparing two social things within a socialist government within a socialist country on a socialist planet isn't helped when your saying that "One is more socialist than the other". Most languages on this planet are pretty broad and there are vastly better terms to use. Definition number two is prototypically a polite version of definition number three.

What's wrong with things needing context to be meaningful? A word that requires context to be understood is better than a word that doesn't describe anything to begin with. The second definition's relation to the third is caused by a dislike of things being in relation to the government, but this isn't going to change as the word used to describe the concept does.

What's wrong with things needing context to be meaningful?

If a term is dependent entirely on context than it is fluid and has no meaning, becoming an somatic icon representing a current idea or descriptive device rather than a functional phrase. The word "Ow" requires about as much context as socialism, and has roughly the same level of accurate description and use.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Are you sure about this? My understanding of it is that what you are describing as Communism is really (idealized) Marxist socialism. "Communism" being a post-socialist stateless society where the means of production are owned by the people directly.

Yep. Oddly enough, any theoretical Communist nation would look a lot like an Anarchist fantasy land.

ShumaGorath wrote:If a term is dependent entirely on context than it is fluid and has no meaning, becoming an somatic icon representing a current idea or descriptive device rather than a functional phrase. The word "Ow" requires about as much context as socialism, and has roughly the same level of accurate description and use.

Every word requires context to some extent; after all, words don't have truly objective meaning. If no one speaks english they're not going to know what a dog is, nor are they going know what one is if they generally speak english but have no experience with dogs in any capacity (this would be quite strange, but you see the point I'm trying to make).

But to repeat myself, what makes socialism so far gone that it can no longer be used meaningfully, in contrast to conservatism, liberalism, progressivism, and capitalism? There are a dozen permutations of these words, and I'd be willing to say that liberalism and conservatism especially are applicable to a wider range of (often contradicting) ideas than socialism is. Capitalism has many of the same problems as socialism itself, due to it being frequently used as the antonym.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If a term is dependent entirely on context than it is fluid and has no meaning, becoming an somatic icon representing a current idea or descriptive device rather than a functional phrase. The word "Ow" requires about as much context as socialism, and has roughly the same level of accurate description and use.

Socialism is fluid, and has little meaning. About the most academic agreement you'll generate with respect to its definition is "not capitalist", and even that is only due to the fact that it was founded as reaction to industrial capitalism. That's what happens when you use an individual term to reference a body of knowledge, rather than a specific phenomenon.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Are you sure about this? My understanding of it is that what you are describing as Communism is really (idealized) Marxist socialism. "Communism" being a post-socialist stateless society where the means of production are owned by the people directly.

I was looking at the term as a descriptor of real world governments. There’s never been a society per the end-state of classical communism, so it isn’t a very useful descriptor, a better definition is one that fits those governments that have self-identified as socialist or have been generally recognised as communist. That, to me, is a state where the means of production (or at least the majority of the means of production) are state controlled.

To say that every nation is socialist because it contains some socialism is misleading; the word isn't usually used that way, or at least it isn't to my knowledge. It would be like saying that every person is old, because every person has aged to some degree; or that an orangish-yellow paint is red because it contains red pigment (pun unintended). Whether or not a nation is socialist becomes a matter of degree, rather than a fact.

It isn’t misleading, as long you understand that every person is old, but some are older than others. Similarly, every government has socialist elements, but some have more socialism than others. Similarly, the developed nations of the world are also capitalist, but some are more capitalist than others.

This too, I disagree with. Socialist is a matter of degree here as well, and to accuse someone of socialism isn't to accuse them of ever favoring any sort of socialization, but rather of favoring a great degree of socialization.

Which is why the charge is nonsense. When everyone is on a sliding scale, it doesn’t make any sense to charge someone with being on a different from themselves. ‘You favour a greater degree of socialism than me, and your level of socialism is self-evidently the amount that takes socialism from being acceptable to the amount that destroys freedom and democracy’… is, well, a nonsense argument.

Of course, the issue with calling someone a socialist in the United States is that there's no debate over the merits of "socialism"; socialism has become so synonymous with evil (or at least huge inefficiency) that instead of judging the merits of a socialist policy, the merits of the policy are judged, and it then becomes "socialist" if found wanting. Which leads to a lot of running around and pointing fingers, and (probably) a lot of annoyance by those who still call themselves socialists.

There’s also that, yes.

sebster wrote:I was looking at the term as a descriptor of real world governments. There’s never been a society per the end-state of classical communism, so it isn’t a very useful descriptor, a better definition is one that fits those governments that have self-identified as socialist or have been generally recognised as communist. That, to me, is a state where the means of production (or at least the majority of the means of production) are state controlled.

All right, fair enough.

It isn’t misleading, as long you understand that every person is old, but some are older than others. Similarly, every government has socialist elements, but some have more socialism than others. Similarly, the developed nations of the world are also capitalist, but some are more capitalist than others.

Statements that are true but misleading are rarely misleading when further elaborated upon.

Which is why the charge is nonsense. When everyone is on a sliding scale, it doesn’t make any sense to charge someone with being on a different from themselves. ‘You favour a greater degree of socialism than me, and your level of socialism is self-evidently the amount that takes socialism from being acceptable to the amount that destroys freedom and democracy’… is, well, a nonsense argument.

Well now you're jumping to the "socialism = bad" definition. I doubt most socialists would consider their ideology to be inherently bad, just as I also doubt that most socialists would consider "socialism" to include far-right governments that have a bare minimum of government intervention.

Even if we follow your logic, though, must we then not ask ourselves by what bright line test we can decide if a nation is a democracy, a police state, a wealthy nation, a poor nation, a nation with a long history, or any other sort of sort of descriptor that gives a very generalized idea of what you're trying to express?

Statements that are true but misleading are rarely misleading when further elaborated upon.

I have never, in my life, seen any government mouthpiece "elaborate" after saying something is socialist.

Well now you're jumping to the "socialism = bad" definition. I doubt most socialists would consider their ideology to be inherently bad, just as I also doubt that most socialists would consider "socialism" to include far-right governments that have a bare minimum of government intervention.

I think you misinterpreted what he was saying.

ShumaGorath wrote:I have never, in my life, seen any government mouthpiece "elaborate" after saying something is socialist.

I haven't seen much effort made for describing political ideologies in general; or at least, not for political ideologies they're not espousing themselves.

I think you misinterpreted what he was saying.

How so? I mean, I know sebster doesn't think that socialism is inherently evil. But I'm not saying it is either.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I haven't seen much effort made for describing political ideologies in general; or at least, not for political ideologies they're not espousing themselves.

That's the point, isn't it? Politicians aren't political scientists, they're political operatives. Their project isn't descriptive, but manipulative.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Statements that are true but misleading are rarely misleading when further elaborated upon.

Touché

Well now you're jumping to the "socialism = bad" definition. I doubt most socialists would consider their ideology to be inherently bad, just as I also doubt that most socialists would consider "socialism" to include far-right governments that have a bare minimum of government intervention.

I’m not jumping to that conclusion about social, but I certainly expect most people calling someone else socialist to believe it to be true.

Oh, and don’t get me started on people who call themselves socialist and expect people to know what they actually believe. The Socialist party at the local university is poles apart from, say, the Social Democrat Party of Germany.

Even if we follow your logic, though, must we then not ask ourselves by what bright line test we can decide if a nation is a democracy, a police state, a wealthy nation, a poor nation, a nation with a long history, or any other sort of sort of descriptor that gives a very generalized idea of what you're trying to express?

Do we? Can’t we just accept that every nation has elements of democracy, elements of a police state, elements of poverty, elements of wealth and all the rest. We can set about describing those characteristics in real terms, and not by assigning random definitions and seeing who does and doesn’t the arbitrary cut-off?

sebster wrote:Oh, and don’t get me started on people who call themselves socialist and expect people to know what they actually believe. The Socialist party at the local university is poles apart from, say, the Social Democrat Party of Germany.

I see what you mean; however, I think I'm going to get a better guess of what a self-proclaimed socialist thinks than a self-proclaimed liberal or conservative, much less someone declared a liberal or conservative by their opponents.

Do we? Can’t we just accept that every nation has elements of democracy, elements of a police state, elements of poverty, elements of wealth and all the rest. We can set about describing those characteristics in real terms, and not by assigning random definitions and seeing who does and doesn’t the arbitrary cut-off?

We can, a lot of time. If we're trying to discuss something in depth we're probably beholden to, or at least to otherwise define contestable terms.

However, there are plenty of times where it's simply quite inefficient to say that a country has a per capita GDP roughly equivalent to 7% of that of the United States, and easier to just call it an impoverished country.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:Oh, and don’t get me started on people who call themselves socialist and expect people to know what they actually believe. The Socialist party at the local university is poles apart from, say, the Social Democrat Party of Germany.

I see what you mean; however, I think I'm going to get a better guess of what a self-proclaimed socialist thinks than a self-proclaimed liberal or conservative, much less someone declared a liberal or conservative by their opponents.

I think that’s an illusion created by the fact that the word Socialism has not historically been used as much in discussing the internal politics of the US as the words Liberal and Conservative. I think it’s just the fact that you’ve seen it used less that makes it seem like it’s a more specific term, when it really isn’t.

Socialism has previously more been a demonized term applied to Communist countries or Communist-supporters, back when we were at odds with the Soviet Union. Now it’s being applied primarily as a pejorative in US political debate, I suspect for two reasons- a) because it’s generally understood to be an antonym of Capitalism, and b) because Communist has gone out of style. Even when I've known people who called themselves Socialists, it usually just meant that they opposed some parts of Capitalism, without being really descriptive.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Do we? Can’t we just accept that every nation has elements of democracy, elements of a police state, elements of poverty, elements of wealth and all the rest. We can set about describing those characteristics in real terms, and not by assigning random definitions and seeing who does and doesn’t the arbitrary cut-off?

We can, a lot of time. If we're trying to discuss something in depth we're probably beholden to, or at least to otherwise define contestable terms.

However, there are plenty of times where it's simply quite inefficient to say that a country has a per capita GDP roughly equivalent to 7% of that of the United States, and easier to just call it an impoverished country.

Sure, but a big part of the problem in this country seems to be that post of what passes for political discourse, at least in the public arena, is nothing BUT these generalizations and superficialities. We have to require better, more in-depth thought of ourselves. And where politicians and pundits fail to display it, we should call them out on that. Not accept it as a necessary evil.

Mannahnin wrote:I think that’s an illusion created by the fact that the word Socialism has not historically been used as much in discussing the internal politics of the US as the words Liberal and Conservative. I think it’s just the fact that you’ve seen it used less that makes it seem like it’s a more specific term, when it really isn’t.

I disagree. For one, I'm not as close to mainstream American politics as some people seem to think. For another, I'm not saying that socialism need be more specific than the other ideological terms, merely that it's not any more vague than they are.

What's a liberal? Both Adam Smith and Joseph Stalin, according to some common definitions of the term. Is the Libertarian Party conservative? Some will say they're one of the most conservative parties there is, but they propose radical change. Socialist, much like capitalist, is at least narrowed a little bit by the emphasis being on economic matters.

Socialism has previously more been a demonized term applied to Communist countries or Communist-supporters, back when we were at odds with the Soviet Union. Now it’s being applied primarily as a pejorative in US political debate, I suspect for two reasons- a) because it’s generally understood to be an antonym of Capitalism, and b) because Communist has gone out of style. Even when I've known people who called themselves Socialists, it usually just meant that they opposed some parts of Capitalism, without being really descriptive.

Of course. But just as socialism is made vague by its use as the opposite of capitalism, capitalism has been made vague by its use as the opposite of socialism.

Sure, but a big part of the problem in this country seems to be that post of what passes for political discourse, at least in the public arena, is nothing BUT these generalizations and superficialities. We have to require better, more in-depth thought of ourselves. And where politicians and pundits fail to display it, we should call them out on that. Not accept it as a necessary evil.

That the use of the words in vague or misleading ways isn't a necessary evil is not to say that the use of the words in any context isn't a necessary evil. Would you say that if in a speech Obama mentioned impoverished countries he was likely trying to manipulate the public through the use of vague, subjective terminology? There are times when that happens, certainly, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't.

I just don’t think that there is any meaningful political view or platform which can be accurately summarized by a single word. If I call myself a Liberal, I may mean the dictionary definition, or I may be referring to a particular party of a given country, which has a huge amount of specific policies and history which may or may not bear any resemblance to the word’s dictionary definition. Same with Conservative and Socialist. Unless I use the word in a very simplistic and limited way, it’s never really going to be accurate.

Mannahnin wrote:I just don’t think that there is any meaningful political view or platform which can be accurately summarized by a single word. If I call myself a Liberal, I may mean the dictionary definition, or I may be referring to a particular party of a given country, which has a huge amount of specific policies and history which may or may not bear any resemblance to the word’s dictionary definition. Same with Conservative and Socialist. Unless I use the word in a very simplistic and limited way, it’s never really going to be accurate.

Isn't that the point though? Words like liberal, conservative, or libertarian aren't meant to summarize the political views of an individual, but rather place people within a larger political or intellectual project. In academia this amounts to little more than an exercise in record keeping; no reputable author would ever refer to some monolithic form of liberal thought in anything beyond the broadest terms. In public debate its a matter of broad affiliation and sympathy, an emotive concept rather than an intellectual one; likely exacerbated in the United States by the presence of only two significant parties.

Of course. And when I use the term liberal to describe myself, I mean it in a broad sense, and as a statement of opposition to people who use the word as an insult.

My point is that you can't tell much of anything meaningful about someone's specific politics from the word Socialist, any more than you can with Liberal or Conservative.

My point is that you can't tell much of anything meaningful about someone's specific politics from the word Socialist, any more than you can with Liberal or Conservative.

Except wherein broad swathes of the population self identify as conservative or liberal while socialist has been essentially demonized and transfigured into a broad brush insult used to not express a descriptor for a groups viewpoints, but to rather express a value statement of difference of belief as compared to standard conservative mantra. Liberal and conservative are given weight as terms by the identification of parties and groups by those terms, socialism does not have that form of mass soft legitimacy. Lberal and Conservative imply a certain set of viewpoints concerning things like abortion, military expense, law enforcement, and foreign policy.

Socialist and socialism implies nothing except perhaps "not conservative".

Don’t know if I fully agree with that, though. You do have some folks (particularly people who admire aspects of European governments) who say they agree with some Socialist ideas, or that we could use a bit more of it.

And Liberal is also used more as a pejorative in public dialogue than a self-descriptor, as far as I can see. Part of why some people started using the word Progressive, no?

Conservative is also, quite frequently, used as a pejorative. Though not nearly as often as Republican.

Semanticism? Isn't that really what its about? Then I guess we are all Semanticists and socialism is just a wimpier more obvious word for whatever 'society' wants. Society wants things that are often incongruous to its members. Religion is probably a good example. If everybody thinks its cool to cut out your virgin daughter's heart or something, well, except for your daughter who's heart is at stake (vampire pun unintended), then where do you stand? Go with what the people want or go with what your daughter wants? Facts are facts and all the "-isms" in the world can't change wrong into right, or change the ugliness of human nature to take advantage of what is beneficial at the expense of what is correct.

Er...what?

Semanticism? Isn't that really what its about? Then I guess we are all Semanticists and socialism is just a wimpier more obvious word for whatever 'society' wants. Society wants things that are often incongruous to its members. Religion is probably a good example. If everybody thinks its cool to cut out your virgin daughter's heart or something, well, except for your daughter who's heart is at stake (vampire pun unintended), then where do you stand? Go with what the people want or go with what your daughter wants? Facts are facts and all the "-isms" in the world can't change wrong into right, or change the ugliness of human nature to take advantage of what is beneficial at the expense of what is correct.

Do you hold your breath than type as much as possible before having to exhale? Most of these posts seem to lack direction or forethought.

Guitardian wrote:Semanticism? Isn't that really what its about? Then I guess we are all Semanticists and socialism is just a wimpier more obvious word for whatever 'society' wants. Society wants things that are often incongruous to its members.

Society can't really 'want' anything, as it doesn't have feelings in the sense that an individual does. Multiple people can desire a thing, and that can be made manifest as social pressure, but that's a phenomenon which is wholly distinct from desire.

But no, socialism doesn't have a whole lot to do with social pressure; except in the sense that its broad ideological category which deals with the proper governmental reaction to it.

Guitardian wrote:
Religion is probably a good example. If everybody thinks its cool to cut out your virgin daughter's heart or something, well, except for your daughter who's heart is at stake (vampire pun unintended), then where do you stand? Go with what the people want or go with what your daughter wants?

There is a long history of people sacrificing themselves in the name of religion (among other things), one which continues to this day.

Guitardian wrote:
Facts are facts and all the "-isms" in the world can't change wrong into right, or change the ugliness of human nature to take advantage of what is beneficial at the expense of what is correct.

Actually, right and wrong have changed frequently throughout human history. About the only universal truth has been "don't do bad things without cause".

Ironically, the tea bag movement seems to include elements of the National Socialist party. Figure that one out...

And I do control one life out of those. That's why I ran for, and was elected to, public office. I'm one step closer to the button.

Doesn't every political movement include elements of the National Socialist party?

BaronIveagh wrote:Ironically, the tea bag movement seems to include elements of the National Socialist party. Figure that one out...

And I do control one life out of those. That's why I ran for, and was elected to, public office. I'm one step closer to the button.

Wut.

and don't create the cause in the first place would be a nice addendum, but then we start having to section things off again, like who wants your daughters heart on a plate for the sun god, versus those who do not. Dumbasses can think whatever they want, often with the support of other dumbasses in a majority. We still all live in a world wher dumb decisions and dumb people raised in dub circumstances make decisions that affect our lives, whether monetarily or legally or ethically we all suffer each other's shortcomings.

(And yeah I exhaled this time knock it off 'raging-ork-dreadnough-whos-name-I-can't-bother-to-cut-paste-edit-in-here') jerk previous poster guy your flaming is annoying to the level of stronger language than 'jerk' it starts with a B and ends in having to scratch. I thought personal attacks were frowned upon. Maybe society outvoted me, which allows you to attack me because you are too pigass dumb to get the meaning of my analogy. Well sucks for you, and for me for having to inhabit the same planet as you. I wish people could take some responsibility to solve why they just suck for everyone else, but hey we're all in a fishbowl together.

Don't attack me again please, I contribute analogies and personal thoughts about things where I can when find relevance in the connection (which doesn't mean you will), and all you contribute was "that's stupid". Well maybe that's just how the world works. The insightful are often overlooked by the shortsighted and reactive, who get to tell us off or makes the rules etc. Pick a side, huh? But quit being a jerk in your responses to things I say I didn't do that to you... oh wait... maybe because you are RIGHT and I am WRONG? Raise your flags in the name of dumb jerks, because they outnumber us... join the dumb jerk party! We even made Tshirts! with your face on them I might add.

and yeah I exhaled. Im sorry this keyboard is older than most warhammer players so I try not to backspace and stuff. What you read is what you get because I can't really edit well, and therefore don't bother because that's just how it is.