Why I'm a Liberal

Rana said:
The roads, police, fire were never privately owned, so would nationalization fit? When I think of nationalization, I think helthcare or like Venezuala and their oil, which went from private ownership to nationalization.

Our pooled resources pay for roads, etc, so socialized seems more accurate.
Click to expand...

Yes, our pooled resources do pay for all these things, but are they owned democratically? Do those building the roads make management decisions, or even elect those who do? Do they elect those who appoint these managers? To all of those things, no.

But Venezuelan industry is socialized. Their government is democratic by all measures, with no powerful capitalist class. So when operations are preformed through the state, even in the odd cases where workers don't manage them, they could still be considered democratic. Socialization can also apply to their industry as a whole, which consists primarily of comunas and co-ops.
 
Rose said:
Incorrect. What you're talking about it nationalization - the transfer of ownership to the government. Socialism, or socialist socialization, is the process of democratizing that ownership. Government ownership would be socialism if this said government was wholly democratic. But that isn't the case in the United States.
Click to expand...

Your opinion brother. A town fire department is not nationalism.
What you hope to accomplish with your word parsing is beyond me.

Sticking by your strict definition, none of the western European nations Brent mentions in the OP practice socialism either.
 
Rose said:
I agree completely. Although, I'd add that there need to be measures taken to ensure that jobs are of a quality where folks will choose to take them. That would probably mean democratic ownership of some sort, and a central authority setting wage controls.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's never been tried before.
 
Rune said:
You aren't worth the effort to put on ignore ignorant young conservative. Put me on ignore if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in hiding behind a block. You took the time to take me off. Fall off your high chair.
 
Rose said:
Yes, our pooled resources do pay for all these things, but are they owned democratically? Do those building the roads make management decisions, or even elect those who do? Do they elect those who appoint these managers? To all of those things, no.

But Venezuelan industry is socialized. Their government is democratic by all measures, with no powerful capitalist class. So when operations are preformed through the state, even in the odd cases where workers don't manage them, they could still be considered democratic. Socialization can also apply to their industry as a whole, which consists primarily of comunas and co-ops.
Click to expand...

So do you consider western European medical systems socialized medicine?
The devil is in the details friend.
Arguing semantics simply derails the the possibility of having a creative productive discussion.
 
Rune said:
Your opinion brother. A town fire department is not nationalism.
What you hope to accomplish with your word parsing is beyond me.

Sticking by your strict definition, none of the western European nations Brent mentions in the OP practice socialism either.
Click to expand...
Rune said:
So do you consider western European medical systems socialized medicine?
The devil is in the details friend.
Arguing semantics simply derails the the possibility of having a creative productive discussion.
Click to expand...

These aren't little details, they're definitions crucial to any intelligent discourse on the topic of liberalism. So let's get them straight - you can fact check me, if you see fit.

Socialism: A term encompassing a number of political systems in which the means of production is owned democratically.
Social democracy: A compromise between capitalism and proletarian interests. Private property is maintained, but concessions (like free housing and education) are made to workers.
Socialization: The process of democratizing ownership of industry.
Nationalization: The process of giving ownership of industry to to a government. This and socialization are not mutually exclusive.
Nationalism: A word for ideology utilizing national identity.

And I very much disagree with Brent. None of the western European nations currently practice socialism. As for socialized medicine... kind of? It's really debatable, but from my perspective, places like Denmark are democratic enough - due to their suppression of capitalists - for that word to be used. But it's a blurry line in their cases.
 
Rose said:
These aren't little details, they're definitions crucial to any intelligent discourse on the topic of liberalism. So let's get them straight - you can fact check me, if you see fit.

Socialism: A term encompassing a number of political systems in which the means of production is owned democratically.
Social democracy: A compromise between capitalism and proletarian interests. Private property is maintained, but concessions (like free housing and education) are made to workers.
Socialization: The process of democratizing ownership of industry.
Nationalization: The process of giving ownership of industry to to a government. This and socialization are not mutually exclusive.
Nationalism: A word for ideology utilizing national identity.

And I very much disagree with Brent. None of the western European nations currently practice socialism. As for socialized medicine... kind of? It's really debatable, but from my perspective, places like Denmark are democratic enough - due to their suppression of capitalists - for that word to be used. But it's a blurry line in their cases.
Click to expand...

I don't need to fact check you, I am well aware of dictionary defintions, and while I too strive for accuracy I still insist that creativity is blocked by rigidity. Literally the thread has derailed and turned into a debate about definitions. Semantics. Concepts are in need of discussion here. You may treat this as a slate upon which to advance your idealistic theory as to which unrealistic form of one size fits all government is best for this or that country. I am here to discuss the practical matters of existing governments.
 
Rune said:
I don't need to fact check you, I am well aware of dictionary defintions, and while I too strive for accuracy I still insist that creativity is blocked by rigidity. Literally the thread has derailed and turned into a debate about definitions. Semantics. Concepts are in need of discussion here. You may treat this as a slate upon which to advance your idealistic theory as to which unrealistic form of one size fits all government is best for this or that country. I am here to discuss the practical matters of existing governments.
Click to expand...

Then do so. I've shown no unwillingness to debate "practical matters of existing governments." Just be accurate in the associations you draw.

Also... what "idealistic theory" are you talking about?
 
Rose said:
Then do so. I've shown no unwillingness to debate "practical matters of existing governments." Just be accurate in the associations you draw.

Also... what "idealistic theory" are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I have noted most of them, as you advanced then, one so in this thread so far. Perhaps you haven't noticed.
 
Rune said:
Yeah, that's never been tried before.
Click to expand...

Sounds exactly like the communes from the sixties. Inevitably the "central authority" would get greedy. There may be one left in existence today. It would be good for you to find out how they lasted so long, what pitfalls they managed to avoid.
 
Rune said:
Sounds exactly like the communes from the sixties. Inevitably the "central authority" would get greedy. There may be one left in existence today. It would be good for you to find out how they lasted so long, what pitfalls they managed to avoid.
Click to expand...

Okay, now don't get me wrong. I'm one of those petty revisionist "deficient socialists". I don't identify with those that want to create change by pulling out of existing structures. So when I talk about cooperatives, I don't mean Owenite communes. This is just basic market socialism - a market economy consisting of democratic firms and a central regulating authority to enforce a universal conception of justice. And my kind of microeconomic model has been shown to work, far over and above yours.
 
Rose said:
Okay, now don't get me wrong. I'm one of those petty revisionist "deficient socialists". I don't identify with those that want to create change by pulling out of existing structures. So when I talk about cooperatives, I don't mean Owenite communes. This is just basic market socialism - a market economy consisting of democratic firms and a central regulating authority to enforce a universal conception of justice. And my kind of microeconomic model has been shown to work, far over and above yours.
Click to expand...

Oh? What would mine be?
 
Rose said:
I agree completely. Although, I'd add that there need to be measures taken to ensure that jobs are of a quality where folks will choose to take them. That would probably mean democratic ownership of some sort, and a central authority setting wage controls.
Click to expand...
'Scuse me, but that's outright Communism and that's working very well in Soviet Russia. WHAT?? You mean Russia's Communist paradise collapsed?? :O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top