CIA Interrogator Crucifies Iraqi Prisoner

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Also by definition Communism is far left, socialism is moderate left, reactionary is far right, conservative is moderate right. If one wishes to be more precise then they can add in additional terms like social-democrat or Christian-democrat but the basics are the same.

Not quite, because there are not two dimensions to the controls of the means of production, but three (owner / State / company's workers) Besides, there's the State interventionism in matters other than the control of the means of production.

Sweden is as capitalist as the US (Both in Sweden and the US, the owner controls the means of production), but Sweden is assuredly a social-democracy for its generous welfare system, and the fact that basically everybody earns the same (I'm exaggerating a little bit ).

An economic system is made of plenty of dimensions, and the control of the means of production, or State intervention in general matters, are only a small part of all those possible dimensions. It is a mistake to try to bog them down in a one-dimension axis (private vs government control), because such an axis wouldn't be able to explain a great many current political systems.

[techumseh]

If a government comes to power in a socialist country and actively changes it into a capitalist one, you can't by any stretch call it a socialist government, any more than you could have called Margaret Thatcher a socialist when she came to power in the then semi-socialist UK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
An economic system is made of plenty of dimensions, and the control of the means of production, or State intervention in general matters, are only a small part of all those possible dimensions. It is a mistake to try to bog them down in a one-dimension axis (private vs government control), because such an axis wouldn't be able to explain a great many current political systems.

Indeed. Perhaps the worst thing ever introduced what the linear axis for defining political philosophies. There are nuances and small details which make it not able to fit on the axis very neatly. For example, how capitalist is the US when government spending is so large (albeit less than European countries).

[laurentius]

Definitions like that are never static anyway and might even be subjective to some people like me. For example if you ask me "christian-democratic" governments should be having leftist policies. Because for me christianity is about caring for you neighbour and those in need. This is why I have no problem being both christian and leftist unlike so many other people. And I'm not alone in this perception, our president is both leftist and christian, so is my mother.

Another example is the difference between "liberal" in Europe and in the US. Or how different republicans are from what they were a hundred years ago.

Using dictionaries is irrelevant because you cant "lock" these definitions.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm with Spiffor. Even considering governmental systems, Russia and China are not really left. China used to be left, but since embracing capitalism, it seems their government system has undergone incredible changes. Russia, I'm not sure how their governmental system is leftist.

Imran, they are no longer Communist but they both still fit the definition of Socialism I suppose there is room to argue that socialism as a government system isn't always leftist but by convention socialism is typically defined as a moderate leftist government and communism as a hard leftist government. Wouldn't you agree?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If you wish to use this dictionary definition (which btw goes against your claim that the West European countries are socialist, because very much of our economy is private), you shouldn't be speaking too much about poli-sci. Because any poli-sci professor would turn your definition down as insufficient, unless you're in the introduction course.

I have to agree with you there. Europe has become progressively less socialist since the 1970's when most major western states had large government holdings. I believe France is one of the last hold out to have a few large companies still controlled by the government though even this is changing quickly.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Err, at least over here, "socialist" doesn't have the same meaning. Europe has a social-democratic society model, but actual socialist countries were in the Soviet bloc.

This could be the crux of the problem then. In the US the Soviet block was called communist while partial state control of industry was called socialism. Thus French or British government control of automakers, steel makers, railroads, etc... made them a socialist system while the Soviets total control of all productive means made them communist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Imran, they are no longer Communist but they both still fit the definition of Socialism I suppose there is room to argue that socialism as a government system isn't always leftist but by convention socialism is typically defined as a moderate leftist government and communism as a hard leftist government. Wouldn't you agree?

I'd argue that they DON'T fit the definition of socialism. Socialism was the USSR when they were at their ideological peak (ie, they were never Communist in the true sense of the word). China used to be Socialist, but not anymore. Russia? Naw, not close.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
HAHA... using the dictionary to define governmental systems!

And btw, Europe doesn't have state ownership of industry or capital. Much of their industry and capital is private.

If you go to the google dictionary the differences are control of major means of production vs contol of all means of production. That's the difference between socialism and communism.

Europe has moved away from state ownership since the 1970's but such government control of the big companies still exists in China and Russia. To their credit they've been moving away from statist socialism for a while now (except for the effective nationalization of companies like Yukos in Russia).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'd argue that they DON'T fit the definition of socialism. Socialism was the USSR when they were at their ideological peak (ie, they were never Communist in the true sense of the word). China used to be Socialist, but not anymore. Russia? Naw, not close.

What definitions are you using? Both used to have 100% government control but have since moved to a mixed government/private system with the stated long term goal of a totally private system. Essentially this is a transition period. China still has vast state owned industries even if the state owned companies now only make up maybe 25% of the economy (UR would know the exact figure so maybe he can help us).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If you go to the google dictionary the differences are control of major means of production vs contol of all means of production. That's the difference between socialism and communism.

Europe has moved away from state ownership since the 1970's but such government control of the big companies still exists in China and Russia. To their credit they've been moving away from statist socialism for a while now (except for the effective nationalization of companies like Yukos in Russia).

State ownership of companies also existed in Franco's Spain. Is that called Socialism? No... Fascism isn't considered to be Socialism.

Socialism is the transitory government to Communism. Communism is a stateless community living in harmony, like people used to do in pastoral times, yadda. Socialism is the way to it, by the government owning ALL (or almost all) means of production and having an economic system based not based on the market. USSR back in the day, or China under Mao.

Social-Democracy is a left-leaning way to curb the excesses of capitalism by introducing some aspects of socialism in order to have a more humane system. Hell, the argument can be made that the US is a social-democracy system (and I'd argue that it is, just one that includes more capitalism than others).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
n economic system is made of plenty of dimensions, and the control of the means of production, or State intervention in general matters, are only a small part of all those possible dimensions. It is a mistake to try to bog them down in a one-dimension axis (private vs government control), because such an axis wouldn't be able to explain a great many current political systems.

OK, I understand. You're using a three or even four dimensional political spectrum instead of the traditional left-right spectrum. Point taken.

If you've ever played Heart of Iron then it's like the triangle Communism/Facism/Democratic system they had only with Government/Worker/Owner. Right?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
State ownership of companies also existed in Franco's Spain. Is that called Socialism? No... Fascism isn't considered to be Socialism.

I think Franco claimed to be socialist but then again so did Hitler.

Socialism is the transitory government to Communism. Communism is a stateless community living in harmony, like people used to do in pastoral times, yadda. Socialism is the way to it, by the government owning ALL (or almost all) means of production and having an economic system based not based on the market. USSR back in the day, or China under Mao.

It sounds like the main difference we're having here is between theoretical communism (I.E. what Marx envisioned in the 19th century) and the communists & socialists practiced in the 20th century. I imagine there are also differences between the common definition of "socialism" and the academic definition of "socialism".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If you've ever played Heart of Iron then it's like the triangle Communism/Facism/Democratic system they had only with Government/Worker/Owner. Right?

I've never played HoI, but I imagine what the triangle could look like. For the issue of control over the means of production, I'd imagine a triangle is accurate. But an economic system is not only characterized by this issue, but by others as well, such as general State interventionism, but also the modernity and sector-distribution of the economy, etc.

For example, if you look at an economic system that is made at 90% of low-tech farming, you'll call it an "Agrarian economy", and it would matter little to know if the guy who controls the farming tools is some rich farmer, the local lord, or a commune of workers.

But if we only look at the issue of control of the means of production, China is indeed definitely much more statist than western countries, which could please the Commies among us who also are statist (again, I'm thinking of Azazel). From what I gather, all land and buildings in China are government property since imperial times, and are long-term leased to private contractors, rather than definitely sold. My commie self thinks he wouldn't mind that

[Dinner]

Yes, I have to agree that it is not really possible to define every aspect of a government's policies in just one sentence. We'd have to create dozens of different categories (social-democrat, fascist, free market, democrat, socialist, dictatorship, and all the rest would just be the beginning) o capture all the different details.

How would you recommend defining government types so that people get a good idea of what policies that government type advocates but which is still simple enough for common people to understand with a phrase?