Ronald Reagan

[Dachs]

Actually... this might not be as far off as you think. I doubt many people study or use the proper political science definitions of political ideologies, so the potential for the latter exists.

The point was that he's just saying the exact same damn thing as knez is, except it's in better English and more tl;dr. They're like mirror images. That sort of thing is why this thread sucks.

 

[Traitorfish]

What IS the proper usage? What political science professors say it is, or what the masses of people say it is? I'd go with the latter. Common usage of a word determines its meaning, which is why saying "Don't forget your rubbers" to a bunch of 3rd graders would probably get you noticed by the law now, but wouldn't in the 30s when it meant winter boots.

If we're going by popular vote, then the majority of people use "socialist" and "liberal" in terms broadly approximate to their political science usages. Americans are the only major dissenting party. Perhaps you can claim primacy in the English usage, but that seems an awfully provincial attitude in this day and age.

 

[Tarquelne]

If we're going by popular vote /snip/

I agree... though the way I approach this is by drawing a distinction between linguistic drift (or whatever the proper term is for the ongoing process of vocabulary changes) and a bunch of people - especially a rather limited group, as you point out - not so much using the term in a new or idiosyncratic way, but in a completely inappropriate manner due to ignorance and propaganda.

A somewhat dubious - but I think highly illustrative - example would be the classroom. If every kid in the room uses the term "accelleration" incorrectly - look, they can't even spell it! - that's not good reason to change the meaning of word worldwide. It's something the teacher should correct. And likely a sign the kids' previous teacher wasn't very good.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Adding to the list:
Cut taxes before raising them.
Stopped wasting money helping poor people.
Expanded the war on drugs (job creation!).
Helped along the Savings & Loan problems (that, admittedly, I don't fully understand).
Gave really good speeches. (I'll take your word for it, I'm probably too socialist/fascist to understand them anyway.)
Anti-socialist.
Dangerous.

Lovely

Maybe an idea to edit these into the OP?

 

[kochman]

What IS the proper usage? What political science professors say it is, or what the masses of people say it is? I'd go with the latter. Common usage of a word determines its meaning, which is why saying "Don't forget your rubbers" to a bunch of 3rd graders would probably get you noticed by the law now, but wouldn't in the 30s when it meant winter boots.

I'd vote against the latter. Common usage of words like "socialist" and "liberal" have striped them of any intelligible meaning. And the masses only use terms in a relative sense--strictly speaking, both major American parties are liberal parties in the poli-sci use of the word, unless one of them endorses the end of things like representative government.

The analogy is funny but I don't think it's very useful.

I agree with Anti-Logic.
Sure, words change over time, but I think we should try to stick to dictionary definitions as much as possible, so that we all have a common place to reference when confused, etc.

When I say "socialism" this is what I mean:
1. socialism - a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. socialism - an economic system based on state ownership of capital
The USSR being extreme socialism...

 

[Ajidica]

Yes, the USSR was a rather unfortunate take on Socialism, much like Pinochet's Chile was a rather unfortunate take on Capitalism. Your point?

 

[kochman]

Yes, the USSR was a rather unfortunate take on Socialism, much like Pinochet's Chile was a rather unfortunate take on Capitalism. Your point?

I don't think it was unclear.
Let me re-post...

Sure, words change over time, but I think we should try to stick to dictionary definitions as much as possible, so that we all have a common place to reference when confused, etc.

When I say "socialism" this is what I mean:
1. socialism - a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. socialism - an economic system based on state ownership of capital
The USSR being (a real life example of) extreme socialism...

I added a bit between the parenthesis...
There is no ulterior message here... it's plain.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think it was unclear.
Let me re-post...

Sure, words change over time, but I think we should try to stick to dictionary definitions as much as possible, so that we all have a common place to reference when confused, etc.

When I say "socialism" this is what I mean:
1. socialism - a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. socialism - an economic system based on state ownership of capital
The USSR being (a real life example of) extreme socialism...

I added a bit between the parenthesis...
There is no ulterior message here... it's plain.

Socialism doesn't advocate state ownership of capital, but common ownership of capital. Since the USSR wasn't exactly democratic, there wasn't any common ownership of capital, so the USSR fails on that mark.

 

[kochman]

Socialism doesn't advocate state ownership of capital, but common ownership of capital. Since the USSR wasn't exactly democratic, there wasn't any common ownership of capital, so the USSR fails on that mark.

Where are you getting your definition from?

Common ownership of capital sounds like "communism", rather than "socialism", and from what I always was taught in school this is the case as well...

The USSR was socialist, not communist, in essence... though they claimed "communism", it was well short of that actual mark.

 

[Quackers]

Yes, the USSR was a rather unfortunate take on Socialism, much like Pinochet's Chile was a rather unfortunate take on Capitalism. Your point?

How was pinochet's chile an unfortunate case of capitalism?

 

[Ajidica]

The economic system Pinochet implemented saw a widespread drop in living standards with only the wealthy and well connected benefiting from the still nationalized copper mines and government contracts.

Generaly, Capitalism doesn't involve a military dictator saying "I will take all the lucrative industries for myself and the wealthy, while then proceeding to oppress anyone who tries to change the status quo".

 

[kochman]

The economic system Pinochet implemented saw a widespread drop in living standards with only the wealthy and well connected benefiting from the still nationalized copper mines and government contracts.

Generaly, Capitalism doesn't involve a military dictator saying "I will take all the lucrative industries for myself and the wealthy, while then proceeding to oppress anyone who tries to change the status quo".

Ironically, you are right, and just shot yourself in the foot.

Pinochet's reign was not an example of "capitalism"...
The USSR's was text book "socialism" (not the communism it was supposed to be.

 

[Ajidica]

Pinochet's reign was not an example of "capitalism"...

So Pinochet wasn't following the advice of the "Chicago Boys"?

The USSR's was text book "socialism" (not the communism it was supposed to be.

The USSR is only a textbook example of Socialism if you believe the Soviet propoganda.

 

[Arakhor]

The USSR's was text book "socialism" (not the communism it was supposed to be.

That sounds like a classic American demonisation of the term.

 

[kochman]

The USSR is only a textbook example of Socialism if you believe the Soviet propoganda.

True to a point. I get what you are saying... that those in power benefited.

However, the state did control all companies pretty much, so whether it was corrupt or not is kind of irrelevant.

 

[meromorph]

That sounds like a classic American demonisation of the term.

That's the way Marx used the term. Capitalism is private ownership of capital, socialism is government ownership of capital, and commuism is communal ownership of capital.

In the USSR the means of production were owned by the state, so they were socialists in Marx's terminology.

In Marxist theory, the capitalism/socialism/communism distinction is just about who owns the means of production, which is not necessarily related to whether the economy should be decentralized or centralized, or whether the government should provide social welfare benefits.

 

[Arakhor]

That's very clear. Thanks!

 

[Traitorfish]

That's the way Marx used the term. Capitalism is private ownership of capital, socialism is government ownership of capital, and commuism is communal ownership of capital.

In the USSR the means of production were owned by the state, so they were socialists in Marx's terminology.

In Marxist theory, the capitalism/socialism/communism distinction is just about who owns the means of production, which is not necessarily related to whether the economy should be decentralized or centralized, or whether the government should provide social welfare benefits.

I don't think this is an accurate summary of Marx's theories. Marx and Engels rejected the concept of the state employed by conservative and liberal political thinkers, contesting that the state was not a political formation existing above and beyond civil society, but something existing precisely within it, and so embodying certain aspects of that society. As such, the state follows rather than precedes the mode of production, so state ownership does not in itself indicate a socialist society. The state may simply be a grand, ultra-monopolistic capitalist enterprise.

(I'd also make some criticisms of the capitalism-socialism-communism progression employed by Kautsky, Lenin, and their successors, which I don't think is properly consistent with Marx- but that's another topic.)

 

[meromorph]

I don't think this is an accurate summary of Marx's theories. Marx and Engels rejected the concept of the state employed by conservative and liberal political thinkers, contesting that the state was not a political formation existing above and beyond civil society, but something existing precisely within it, and so embodying certain aspects of that society. As such, the state follows rather than precedes the mode of production, so state ownership does not in itself indicate a socialist society. The state may simply be a grand, ultra-monopolistic capitalist enterprise.

You're right, thanks for the correction. Marxist socialism requires that the working class controls the state and uses it in their interests. The "monopolistic capitalist" government that controls all the capital but uses it in the interests of the ruling class and subjugates the lower classes would not be a form of Marxist socialism, so I should have taken care to exclude that in giving a definition.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Common ownership of capital sounds like "communism", rather than "socialism", and from what I always was taught in school this is the case as well...

Something tells me that American schools in the Cold War era didn't exactly teach accurate Marxist theory...

Anyway, worker ownership of capital is the definition of socialism.