51 replies to this topic

[Nicky]

I remember posting a lengthy explanation on the many meanings of the word "communism", in the past. I'm not gonna repeat it, I'll just say that none of those meanings describe a socially liberal country with a mixed economy, like the US.

Calling the US communist is a poor attempt at hyperbole.

There are some typically fascist methods being used to run the US government and some of the government controlled industries, though. I'll give you that.

Edited by Nicky, 14 June 2012 - 08:32 AM.

[SapereAude]

What makes you think I don’t take “the path we’re on” seriously? That I reject the hysterical tone of the OP? Perhaps I criticize him because I take “the path we’re on” seriously.

Perhaps it is how I interpret your general tone. If I misinterpret then I apologise.

[aequalsa]

Calling the US communist is a poor attempt at hyperbole.

A good article by Thomas Sowell on the name that statism game.

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jun/13/thomas-sowell-by-any-name-left-threatens-liberty/?partner=popular

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector....

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like themselves — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

Unless you're interested in comparing the specific outcomes of specific policies, like say Stalin's purges vs. the Trotsky influenced Khrushchev's in a historical perspective, I see little value in specifying the finer points of various forms of statism since they amount to the this same things...slavery and death. Usually when people bring that argument up it is intended to discredit the person as ill-informed and/or to imply that "x wasn't communism since a true marxist regime when never hurt people or limit their rights," or something of the sort. What these arguments fundementally do is attack an individuals epistemology, causing conceptual paralysis since anything outside of specific concrete instances can fall outside of the pure definition of the word "communist" or "socialist." The fact that this particular would be plantation owner currently in the white house now utilizes different strategies than Stalin, Hitler, and Louis XIV in no way exonerates him or his policies. They all amount to the same thing...a deep seated loathing of freedom in everyone but themselves.

[Wotan]

I remember posting a lengthy explanation on the many meanings of the word "communism", in the past. I'm not gonna repeat it, I'll just say that none of those meanings describe a socially liberal country with a mixed economy, like the US.

Calling the US communist is a poor attempt at hyperbole.

Calling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, gov't roads, and gov't schools communist isn't hyperbole -- it's absolutely accurate. There's no fundamental difference between the 1930s, Stalinist, Soviet system regarding these six, and the US system today. To refer to these six specific programs and institutions as mere "social democracy" -- as some have suggested -- is inaccurate, misleading, and deeply unhelpful. It's best to call a spade a spade.

There's really only two options when it comes to an economic system today: communism and capitalism. And there's really only two options when it comes to a socio-personal system today: fascism and libertarianism. It seems best to be direct and explicit when describing the various alternatives. America has a "mixed" political system -- but it's a mixture of two very well-named things. And these terms ultimately refer to slavery and freedom. Euphemism impedes the world in gaining economic and socio-personal knowledge; and in accurately, helpfully labeling important aspects of political reality.

[Nicky]

There's really only two options when it comes to an economic system today: communism and capitalism.

You can keep misusing the term, or you can look up what it means. It's up to you.

[aequalsa]

When you let your opponents define the terms of an argument, it's almost a guarantee that they'll win.

[SapereAude]

Rand thought definitions and the use of precisely correct terms important:

"The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents.
Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but thelogical order of their hierarchical interdependence."

So while one can tell themselves that what is important is not the specifics of communism or socialism or fascism but rather that they all lead to the same end that does not mean that when conveying information or giving an opinion one should not use the correct term.

One could say that being stung by a scorpion or bit by a poisonous snake the end results are the same.
Or one could say that distinction is important when choosing an anti-venin with which to combat the poisoning.

[aequalsa]

Rand thought definitions and the use of precisely correct terms important:

"The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents.
Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but thelogical order of their hierarchical interdependence."

I agree with that of course, but what then of situations like this when the various new terms are used primarily to disguise an old idea with new trappings and blur the meaningful distinctions with less ominous sounding verbage?

Pinko Commy Bastard-"Oh no, he's not a communist...he's progressive...!"
Capitalist Pig- "...Oh right he 'favors or advocates progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters' sooo....he doesn't want government to control as much of the economy as they can get their hands on, right?"

Pinko Commy bastard-"I'm so tired of people calling Soviet Russia communist. They were totalitarian."
Capitalist Pig- "So they didn't attempt to institute 'a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state?' They weren't attempting to follow Marx's blueprint of instituting a dictatorship of the proletariat until such time as human nature sufficiently changed to allow us to all get along voluntarily and have our needs met without property rights? Kumbafuckinya?

Pinko Commy bastard-"No, this cant be fascism in the US. Government here only controls 40% of the economy directly. The other 60% is only controlled indirectly through regulation and specially allocated tax breaks and legal exemptions paired with government buying policies for the politically connected with some left leaning social restrictions. Fascists were right leaning and spoke Italian."
Capitalist pig- "You're right. Must not be Fascism. Let's instead call it a European Styled Social Democracy with a loosely tied safety net that catches only enough people to justify its existence to the masses,so drunk on the bread and circuses they learned to love in our public schools that they don't need us to censor them, while obfuscating its primary purpose of allocating the majority of resources and power into the hands of a few politically connected elites."


In identifying true, useful definitions it is necessary to identify the essential differences and similarities. If an earlier Socialist State owned the steel mills and textile factories and a modern Socialist state only owns and/or controls all of the schools and the banks(who force financial terms and ownership loss on the steel mills and textile factories through a debt-based currency paired with cost magnifying regulation) it hasn't changed in any way substantial enough to warrant a new term. The real purpose of a word like Social Democracy is not to clarify substantially different concepts but rather to put distance between the practitioner and the now discredited term "socialist." To use your example, it would be as if we called Snake poison, "poison," but then, because people don't like "poison," we call scorpion poison "Scorpion oral excretion," so that we do not fear it as we rightfully should.

Obviously, all historical concretes are going to vary significantly, but I don't accept that as a carte blanche to make up a new word for each specific instance. Their particular methodologies, the scapegoats they choose whether Jews or gays or entrepreneurs, the amount they take, how they take it, are all irrelevant. Taking 40% of my income rather than 60%, while beneficial to me personally, is a meaningless distinction in identifying what they actually are. Spending it on free healthcare rather than a army worthy of building an empire is still nothing more than a distraction. The culture and historical circumstances change only what they can get away with and not what they desire. What doesn't ever change is their fundemental driving goal. They look around and see a world that's not ideal enough or efficient enough, or not kind enough and set out to change it. They inevitably fail because upset and inefficiency is an inseparable aspect of the trial and error that life is and that leads them to try and own me, and own you too. They're scared, hurt, petty little arrogant minds that believe that if only they could turn us into well behaved pets we'd thank them for it and heap wealth and adulation on their shoulders like they believe they deserve for the great benifits we gain by giving up our own wills for theirs. They are opposed to rights. That is the only meaningful difference in political constructs. The differences that can be pointed to are no more than high level variations on their levels of success in separating our actions from our wills and, ultimately our minds from our bodies.

[SapereAude]

I think we agree more than we disagree on this aequalsa.
I agree entirely about "progressives" and people with collectivist agends creatign new terms for things to make them seem less ominous.
But that is precisely why I believe it is important to use the correct wording. Both conservatives and liberals have been misusing terms for so long that it is important when stating your case to show that youa ctually do know what all these terms mean and what their implementation entails upfront.

It makes it slightly harder for them to weasel around in the manner you presented so well.

[aequalsa]

I think we agree more than we disagree on this aequalsa.
I agree entirely about "progressives" and people with collectivist agends creatign new terms for things to make them seem less ominous.
But that is precisely why I believe it is important to use the correct wording. Both conservatives and liberals have been misusing terms for so long that it is important when stating your case to show that youa ctually do know what all these terms mean and what their implementation entails upfront.

It makes it slightly harder for them to weasel around in the manner you presented so well.

I think you're right about our agreement. Rhetorically speaking though, I find that allowing that conversation to even happen for very long gets the conversation bogged down in details and away from the essentials in such a way as to allow them to be on equal moral footing. I agree though that one ought to have a decent understanding of the various types of political systems though since that allows you to ascertain quickly what groups in particular they wish to own. The quicker i can get that the quicker I can get back to the fundamentals as in..."ohhh you want to own the 1%(or some percentage of their money) because they can't be trusted to decide what to do with their wealth. I feel the same way with black people in the US. They're not doing very well economically for the most part so I would like to be in charge of how they spend their money. Maybe we can compromise. What, no? Why not? Oh, ok...you don't like the race thing. How about poor people generally. They make lots of bad decisions with their money. Almost by definition... Maybe I can own the bottom 1% for the good of society. "

I find people like that reprehensible. As much as if they wanted to own a racial group so I'm extremely disinclined to allow them to carry on in a conversation without confronting that fact. The real scary ones to me are the ones who are unphased by it.

[Nicky]

In identifying true, useful definitions it is necessary to identify the essential differences and similarities. If an earlier Socialist State owned the steel mills and textile factories and a modern Socialist state only owns and/or controls all of the schools and the banks(who force financial terms and ownership loss on the steel mills and textile factories through a debt-based currency paired with cost magnifying regulation) it hasn't changed in any way substantial enough to warrant a new term.

If in a Capitalist state private individuals owned everything, and in a modern Capitalist state they own pretty much everything except a few things like schools and roads, nothing changed enough to warrant a new term. Therefor the US economic system is currently Capitalism.

Do you see anything wrong with this argument? Do you wish to insist that the only capitalist economic system is one in which all means of production are privately owned?

I assume you do. So why would you not want to also distinguish between Communism/Communist entities, the movement/entities which aim to establish a stateless society in which all means of production are commonly owned, and the American government? You'd think it would be clear to everyone with a pulse that the American government is not a Communist organization.

[aequalsa]

If in a Capitalist state private individuals owned everything, and in a modern Capitalist state they own pretty much everything except a few things like schools and roads, nothing changed enough to warrant a new term. Therefor the US economic system is currently Capitalism.

...

So why would you not want to also distinguish between Communism/Communist entities, the movement/entities which aim to establish a stateless society in which all means of production are commonly owned, and the American government?

No, I would not try to argue that a country that was overwhelmingly capitalist was not capitalist. Let's say everything but the roads is privately owned since state run indoctrination camps are never more than 2 generations away from socialism.. Let's say further, that it was an abject failure and everyone starved to death out of greed and avarice and too much money spent on hookers and gambling. I would consider it dishonest to try and claim that since the roads were publicaly owned it wasn't "true" capitalism capitalism. It was actually a tollboothacracy. No. No way. It was close enough to a capitalist state that it would be a great example of the impracticability of capitalism. I would even call the first 120 years of the United States an example of capitalism even though it had quite a few more particulars of government involvement in the economy beyond control of the roads.

Likewise, in the present day US we are far closer to fascism and in some cases socialism than we are to capitalism and heading in that direction at breakneck speed. In 1930 it may have been a toss up as to which side of this coin we were on but now it's not close enough to even bother with the question. Arguments to the contrary are all predicated on the unique nature of Fascism that Sowell outlined so well in the link I provided, where business men(using that term loosely since few significant companies and industries don't have governmental ties) are routinely blamed for failed government policies and regulations.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think there may be too much arguing over definitions here, as with either communism or fascism, it is the government by force who is telling you what to do under the threat of imprisonment or fines; which is certainly not freedom.but I do find it amazing how many people go around claiming that the Soviet Union was not a communist country. Some say it because it was not imposed voluntarily (everyone didn't decide to pool their resources and let the government decide), but other say that it didn't achieve the Great Commonwealth and therefore fell short of the Communist Ideal. You know, it's like they have a fairy tale version of Karl Marx's ideal, and the reality just never sunk in -- that if one takes communism seriously as a moral ideal, then of course force is going to be used to make people comply. Similarly with fascism. And certainly America is heading for either one, though it is closer to fascism -- because then the politicians can continue to blame the businessman for every ill; like they have with the Financial Crises and will for the upcoming Currency Collapse (which will also be blamed on the banks).

What to do about it? Continue to advocate capitalism in its pure, unadulterated form, and continue to promote a Constitutional Republic limiting the government to only having the role of protecting individual rights. It was made possible in the past due to the rational ideals of The Enlightenment, and can be brought about again, if we remain free enough and long enough to get the right ideas out there.

[Nicky]

No, I would not try to argue that a country that was overwhelmingly capitalist was not capitalist. Let's say everything but the roads is privately owned since state run indoctrination camps are never more than 2 generations away from socialism.. Let's say further, that it was an abject failure and everyone starved to death out of greed and avarice and too much money spent on hookers and gambling. I would consider it dishonest to try and claim that since the roads were publicaly owned it wasn't "true" capitalism capitalism. It was actually a tollboothacracy. No. No way. It was close enough to a capitalist state that it would be a great example of the impracticability of capitalism. I would even call the first 120 years of the United States an example of capitalism even though it had quite a few more particulars of government involvement in the economy beyond control of the roads.

Likewise, in the present day US we are far closer to fascism and in some cases socialism than we are to capitalism and heading in that direction at breakneck speed. In 1930 it may have been a toss up as to which side of this coin we were on but now it's not close enough to even bother with the question. Arguments to the contrary are all predicated on the unique nature of Fascism that Sowell outlined so well in the link I provided, where business men(using that term loosely since few significant companies and industries don't have governmental ties) are routinely blamed for failed government policies and regulations.

A prerequisite of having a conversation with someone is to agree on a set of standards for that conversation, such as common definitions of the English language, the rules of logic, etc.

I'm ending the conversation because I don't think you are willing to abide by any standards. I did at first engage you because I figured your liberal use of "socialism" was probably the exception to the rule, but your preference for a silly catchphrase instead of the clear and concise term "public schools" tells me that it's not.

[aequalsa]

A prerequisite of having a conversation with someone is to agree on a set of standards for that conversation, such as common definitions of the English language, the rules of logic, etc.

I'm ending the conversation because I don't think you are willing to abide by any standards. I did at first engage you because I figured your liberal use of "socialism" was probably the exception to the rule, but your preference for a silly catchphrase instead of the clear and concise term "public schools" tells me that it's not.

You're free to do as you wish including jump to conclusions about my intent or capacities, but I think, from the above statement that you still do not understand my central point, which is that what you are calling "clear and concise" words can, and often are used to obfuscate the horrible nature of what is actually occurring. Calling Auschwitz a German re-education camp, while technically correct, allows a level of civility in conversation that something so grotesque ought never to be afforded. So I don't afford it. Believe me when I say that I know and understand the terms of these arguments. My refusal to use them in most situations is because I care so much for concise meaning and those "agreed upon" terms that revere absolutely disallow a concise conversation.

[Ninth Doctor]

I think Ayn Rand’s comments here bear on the subject of this thread.

I’m curious if anyone will argue that the present day U.S. is worse than 1947. Bear in mind that today we have no conscription, and even the calls for compulsory “national service” don’t made much headway.

People don’t have to worry about a knock on the door, not for having expressed their ideas anyway, if they have a stash of marijuana that’s another matter. There’s plenty to complain about, but to say we’re living under totalitarianism is…well never mind, I repeat myself.

[Nicky]

You're free to do as you wish including jump to conclusions about my intent or capacities, but I think, from the above statement that you still do not understand my central point, which is that what you are calling "clear and concise" words can, and often are used to obfuscate the horrible nature of what is actually occurring. Calling Auschwitz a German re-education camp, while technically correct, allows a level of civility in conversation that something so grotesque ought never to be afforded. So I don't afford it. Believe me when I say that I know and understand the terms of these arguments. My refusal to use them in most situations is because I care so much for concise meaning and those "agreed upon" terms that revere absolutely disallow a concise conversation.

Concentration camps weren't "re-education" camps, they were extermination camps. American public schools are schools, not camps. So you shouldn't call extermination camps re-education camps, and you shouldn't call schools any kind of camps. You should call them public schools, because that's what they are, no matter what your opinion is on their hidden purpose.

And there are enough essential differences between the United States and the Soviet Union, North Korea or other near-perfect communist states, that you shouldn't call both systems by the same name unless you're trying to prove some kind of point via wordgames.

Edited by Nicky, 17 June 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[aequalsa]

I’m curious if anyone will argue that the present day U.S. is worse than 1947.

I would. I would dare anyone to try and start a business now that was started in 1947.

[Nicky]

I would. I would dare anyone to try and start a business now that was started in 1947.

I don't think anyone will take you up on your dare (because it doesn't come with the reward dares usually come with), but if they did, they could start any business that was started in 1947 (except maybe one cooking meth, or some other weird activity that became illegal since then).

Sure, it's more difficult to start a business, but that's not a trait of communism. In communism, it's not difficult to start a business: it's impossible.

Edited by Nicky, 17 June 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Eiuol]

I would. I would dare anyone to try and start a business now that was started in 1947.

And I probably could find a type of business that you can start now that could not be started in 1947, namely, just about any business started online. So, if you decide to argue that point, please use a variety of examples to indicate how the entire economic system is notably worse, rather than how some aspects that have gotten worse, when others may honestly be better.

[aequalsa]

Concentration camps weren't "re-education" camps, they were extermination camps. American public schools are schools, not camps. So you shouldn't call extermination camps re-education camps, and you shouldn't call schools any kind of camps. You should call them public schools, because that's what they are, no matter what your opinion is on their hidden purpose.

The point is that they were not called "extermination camps." That's what we call them now because we know that's what they actually are, regardless of their clear and concise name. Likewise a system that requires, by force of law, all children attend a government owned and run facility where they are indoctrinated by what is primarily the Prussian model laced with Dewey's theories as an alleged improvement, is in no way comparable to an actual educational facility. What happens in your typical "public schools" is absolutely not education. It is in point of fact, antithetical to all things an education should by, by design. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's the history of education in this country for the last 130 years.

And there are enough essential differences between the United States and the Soviet Union, North Korea or other near-perfect communist states, that you shouldn't call both systems by the same name unless you're trying to prove some kind of point via wordgames.

I didn't. I called it Fascist or Socialist, depending on the element you are looking at. Here's some examples...Federal Reserve-Fascist, Government owned Mandatory Schools=Socialist, The few private schools=Fascist, Banking and Insurance Industries=Fascist, GM=Socialist, Utilities=Fascist, Energy=Fascist. Oil Refineries=Fascist, Computer Industry=Free Enterprise.

[aequalsa]

I don't think anyone will take you up on your dare (because it doesn't come with the reward dares usually come with), but if they did, they could start any business that was started in 1947 (except maybe one cooking meth, or some other weird activity that became illegal since then).

Sure, it's more difficult to start a business, but that's not a trait of communism. In communism, it's not difficult to start a business: it's impossible.

It's orders of magnitude more difficult. So difficult that most financial analysts recommend not starting one because they are so likely to fail, usually as a direct or indirect result of regulation compliance. It's difficult enough that it is usually impossible or prohibitively expensive. I've started 3 businesses. 2 Failures, 1 success. I usually work 12-16 hour days and half of that is regulation and tax compliance. It's nothing like 1947. If you think that it's because you haven't tried to start one in a regulated industry.

[aequalsa]

And I probably could find a type of business that you can start now that could not be started in 1947, namely, just about any business started online. So, if you decide to argue that point, please use a variety of examples to indicate how the entire economic system is notably worse, rather than how some aspects that have gotten worse, when others may honestly be better.

Sure. Online business is known as the one example of unregulated industry. Anything brick and mortar is another world. Get anywhere near food, oil, children, health and its a goddamn nightmare.

[Ninth Doctor]

Sure. Online business is known as the one example of unregulated industry. Anything brick and mortar is another world. Get anywhere near food, oil, children, health and its a goddamn nightmare.

For the sake of argument I’ll concede that it’s harder to start a business today than in 1947. It really depends on the jurisdiction and the kind of business. This does call to mind, however, a Stossel special about how difficult it is to start a business in India vs. the US. By that standard (and at that time, this was well over 10 years ago) doing it in the US was a breeze. OTOH he’s done programs more recently about children’s lemonade stands being shut down, talk about lunacy.

Now I could point out here that say, Glass Steagal was reversed, but I wouldn’t go so far as to claim it’s “easier” to start a bank today. So, instead, let’s consider another area. Stephen Boydstun posted a nice piece today about his relationship with his deceased gay partner, so that brings to mind civil rights for gays. The Stonewall riots were in 1969, and before that police used to go after gays, with the law on their side. Now, forget it. Anti-sodomy laws are toast everywhere (far as I know). I call that a step in the right direction, government is now out of the bedroom…well, except when they’re raiding swinger clubs here in my hometown.

I’m afraid this is going to be a fruitless line of discussion, I think the US has gotten better in some ways and worse in others, and while on the whole it’s about the same, this isn’t something that can be measured with precision or even objectivity (e.g. any one person may assign more weight than another to abortion rights (positive change) than the drug war (negative change)). So, I’ll just repeat myself, this time with Stossel’s old catch phrase: “massively communist and fascist nation? Give me a break!”

[Nicky]

a system that requires, by force of law, all children attend a government owned and run facility

Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that a little?