Socialism No Longer Has Negative Connotation

[chequita guevara]

Nope

[chequita guevara]

Stalinism and National socialism are very similar, because they look to nationalities. Trotskyites are different because they align according to class.

The only real difference is that both subsume the individual to the collective. In the former, it is the nation, in the latter, is it his class.

The real spectrum is not so much communism/liberal/conservative/fascist, really it is:

communism/fascism/liberal/conservative/libertarian/anarchist.


collective --> Individual.

No

[Berzerker]

The title does not lie. I just edited for brevity. The point here is, the GOP has rehabilitated us. Thanks to them, socialism is no longer a dirty word.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, socializing the losses of corporate fatcats aint going over too well. Lets just say "capitalism" has taken a big hit thanks to the Bu****s and Dems and their social engineering and corruption.

[chequita guevara]

Socializing the losses of the capitalists is not socialism. It's capitalism. The capitalists have always sought to externalize their costs. Now they are externalizing their losses. It really was the next step.

[Ben Kenobi]

Externalising cost != Externalising losses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nope

Yep.

Less negative never means no longer has a negative connotation.



Do no pass Go. Go straight to English Class.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Socializing the losses of the capitalists is not socialism. It's capitalism.

Nope.

[Berzerker]

Socializing the losses of the capitalists is not socialism. It's capitalism.

capitalism means they go out of business, socialism means the state props them up by bleeding the collective

The capitalists have always sought to externalize their costs. Now they are externalizing their losses. It really was the next step.

"We own" AIG now, that next step didn't lead to capitalism...

[Darius871]

I am pretty sure it would have something to do with there not being a dictatoral super power practisioner of it threatening nuclear oblivion acting as its poster boy for the last twenty years. That tends to soften your image a bit.

QFT, sometimes I wish they'd have stuck around for the long haul just so new generations would actually get a whiff of it outside textbooks.

[Unimatrix11]

capitalism means they go out of business, socialism means the state props them up by bleeding the collective.

Capitalism means they go out of business, alright, but if the state instead takes over the corp as its own, continuing to run it in a capitalist way, it is not socialism, but state-capitalism - the confusion of the two is the one big misunderstanding of the 20th century.

If the state just props up the corp, without taking it over, it is high-capitalism: Corps frequently justify their profits by the risks they are taking. If the state takes over that risk, what remains is unjustifiable profit - theft. It is also morally hazardous: If i know, the state will bail me out anyways, i can take any risk (and if take it, i pretty much force my competitors to do the same) - if i am lucky, i get the money, if i am not, the state has the problem. Whatever this is, it is NOT socialism.

It is actually the weakness of socialism, that it doesnt support risk-taking, for profits (if there happen to be any in a socialist enterprise, which is not its purpose here) AND risks are shared - so there is no screwing over, where people borrow money to play roulette and if they loose let everyone else pay back, while if they win, it´s all theirs (minus the loan+interest). Socialist societies simply avoid playing roulette in the first place, since they can only play with the money they own. On the other hand, sometimes the number bet on actually is rolled and then this might result in technological advances (along with personal profit). And since every actor in a capitalist system is more or less forced to play roulette, this systems yields more advance. The resulting unequal distribution of money and the constant need of the few wealthy to constantly reinvest, gives way to an otherwise unattainable economic growth - which is good, for some time. Only when the to-be-invested money (e.g. capital) does not find any real way of reproducing itself anymore, the system starts to become self-defeating (leaving the gross unfairness of its growth-phases aside for a minute): Money and production do not serve the people anymore (actually never they do - but at least for some time, it can be pretended), but rather vice versa: ´The machine´ (Robert Kurz) takes on a life of its own. In this regard capitalism is like war: Even the ones who started it, loose control over it after a certian point and become unable to stop it. This is not really surprising, since by its principle of competition among each, capitalism is exactly that, from its very premise: war of each against the other (very christian btw).

I remember how we used to laugh about socialist words back in the 80´s and early 90´s - things like the ´real-existing´ socialism (often-used propanganda slang by eastern authorites) just made us laugh. We totally omitted our own ´funny´ creations though: In german, for example, the one who gives his work (the employée) is actually called the ´work-taker´ (Arbeitnehmer), while the one offering a job (the employer) is the ´work-giver´ (Arbeitgeber) - isnt he generous, to give us work and even pay us? Then we have the ´labour-market´ (Arbeitsmarkt) - is it only me, or does this sound a lot like ´slave-market´ after giving it some thought? In Germany, the government has decided to pay each person €2500, if they get rid of an at least nine year old car and buy a new one - it´s called the ´environment-bonus´ (Umweltprämie). That´s just another euphemism - it has nothing to do with the environment, it is merely a tool to stimulate car-sales. It took decades to get some decent environmental laws, but it took only two or so weeks, to push this one through. There is words like ´work-acquiration-program´ (Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme) to get people into jobs - is it not a wierd system, that actually tries to create work, just in order to keep itself going?
Isnt it striking, that we constantly need to consume more and more? When the financial crises started, the german gov wanted to hand out ´consumption coupons´. I made that into a joke at parties, claiming i already had one, generating interest among the audience. I then pulled out a bill and thus dismantled the newest euphemism. The gov had two reasons why to call it this way: a) Cover up the fact, that they wanted the money press to roll and b) the coupon was to be spent within a certain time-frame on consumer goods only, so to stimulate demand. It is basically the idea of ´free-money´ as Gisell formulated it or the brakteates of the middle ages (which inherently loose value as time passes, regardless of inflation) and it has been practiced on various occasion in the more recent past with remarkable success. Only it is unthinkable to have interest-free money or to even acknowedge there is something to the idea - so better not call it so.

Anyways, enough of the big rant. Bottom line is: The governemts around the world (the US included) are not trying to abolish capitalism in order to replace it with socialism (or even state-capitalism), but they are trying to save capitalism from its own self-defeating nature. It goes without saying that they need to step outside its rules and boundaries in order to succeed. Capiatlism (aka ´debitism´) has to be saved from outside from time to time or else it could not continue.

[Felch]

Socializing the losses of the capitalists is not socialism. It's capitalism.

It's neither socialism nor capitalism. It's corporatism, the economic aspect of fascism.

Seriously, let's try to use the same words to mean the same things. Capitalism isn't just "whatever Che doesn't like." Capitalism is a specific economic idea supported by the free-market, rule of law, and creative destruction. Fascism may appear similar, but it rejects those three basic pillars. So long as you call everything under the sun "capitalism," you come across as goofy as those Ann Coulters.

[Unimatrix11]

It's neither socialism nor capitalism. It's corporatism, the economic aspect of fascism.
...

Well, since this is happening all the time, it is apparent in what system we are living.

[Arrian]

The point here is, the GOP has rehabilitated us

This is perhaps the most telling part of it, Che. Aside from your overstating the case, this is the key. The GOP had to **** up royally to take (some of) the sting out of being labelled a socialist.

If the Dems manage the situation decently (no sure thing, of course), the stigma may stay like it is now. If they screw up horribly (and they might), the GOP will blame it on "socialism" and it will probably stick. Either way, socialism (real socialism) isn't going anywhere in the US.

-Arrian

[Felch]

This is not really surprising, since by its principle of competition among each, capitalism is exactly that, from its very premise: war of each against the other (very christian btw).

Sports are a competition. But even with all the nationalism and competition surrounding the World Cup, nobody would compare it to war. There is a difference between competing within the structure of governing rules and an all out campaign for the destruction of your opponent. Capitalism is just a competition between different economic parties. If the rules are obeyed (sometimes they aren't) it's good for everybody. The better producer makes money, the inferior producer looks for a different market niche, and the consumer gets a higher quality product at a lower price.

[Felch]

Well, since this is happening all the time, it is apparent in what system we are living.

True. And I'm opposed to corporatism, just as much as anybody else.