Modern socialism is more or less fully removed from National Socialism-style socialism; as Democratic Socialism is effectively "reasonable government regulation and social safety nets." Even...
Modern socialism is more or less fully removed from National Socialism-style socialism; as Democratic Socialism is effectively "reasonable government regulation and social safety nets." Even Socialist International, by far the most popular Socialist movement, is more or less entirely that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the most well-known socialist in the United States presently, is a Democratic Socialist, for example.
The word's been reclaimed, the definition's been solidified for decades now, and it's really high-time that people in America realise that.
If you look at the parties in the Progressive Alliance & Socialist International, you'll notice that they support more or less entirely what Wilkinson's referring to.
It's been a mess ever since Lenin started to draw a distinction between socialism and communism. I'd rather be specific and keep the distinction between demsoc and revolutionary socialism, they...
It's been a mess ever since Lenin started to draw a distinction between socialism and communism. I'd rather be specific and keep the distinction between demsoc and revolutionary socialism, they really are different things. That or the left could try to reclaim "communism", but that seems like an uphill battle. Maybe a new word altogether would be better, free from the burdens of the 20th century.
NatSoc is what generally comes up in the mind of people who have a "It Only Means One Thing" mindset, as you seemed to be showing, so I assumed. Apparently, that assumption was incorrect, so I...
NatSoc is what generally comes up in the mind of people who have a "It Only Means One Thing" mindset, as you seemed to be showing, so I assumed. Apparently, that assumption was incorrect, so I apologise for that.
I'd rather be specific and keep the distinction between demsoc and revolutionary socialism, they really are different things.
Though your opinions/wants don't really change common usage and understanding of a word. I'd rather the word "Conservative" meant small-government, but it doesn't, for example.
Sure, but there's still a large group of people using "socialism" in the revolutionary sense, so imo it makes sense to continue to push for what I think is the proper meaning.
Though your opinions/wants don't really change common usage and understanding of a word.
Sure, but there's still a large group of people using "socialism" in the revolutionary sense, so imo it makes sense to continue to push for what I think is the proper meaning.
That's a fair perspective, yeah, and I can definitely appreciate it (it probably would have been optimal to do that when the modern socialist movement got started, for example, buuuut...for...
That's a fair perspective, yeah, and I can definitely appreciate it (it probably would have been optimal to do that when the modern socialist movement got started, for example, buuuut...for whatever reason, they didn't. My argument's moreover about how it's a bit too late for that); but language changes with the majority; and the majority of people seem to use it in the modern sense.
Nazi translates directly to National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were wholly a socialist government except exclusive to who they were supporting. A lot of people consider them fascist....
Nazi translates directly to National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were wholly a socialist government except exclusive to who they were supporting. A lot of people consider them fascist. Italy was fascist. Germany was socialist.
With that said, the revolutionary (or radical, as it were) socialists tend to pervert any socialist movement they involve themselves with. If you do not play by their rules and toe their line, they consider you as an enemy to their cause. On Reddit, for example, you can't even participate in a meaningful debate on communism or socialism on their turf. If you don't agree, you get banned. End of story.
If they're able to enact this on a political level, you will see a rise of labor camps and summary executions of people they consider unfriendly. It has already been done, and the results are well documented. It is still happening in China and their dissidents are punished in extremely cruel ways. For example, they are often tortured in to making public statements saying they were wrong and professing the validity of their government (eg, George Orwells "1984").
Demsoc is double plus good, btw. Of course, not really. Orwell wasn't an advocate of that manner of speaking, despite being a socialist, himself.
Socialism will never be viable as long as it is done at the barrel of a gun rather than through the good will of the constituency.
You need to find the person who taught you this, and demand an apology from them for how bad a teacher they were.
Nazi translates directly to National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were wholly a socialist government except exclusive to who they were supporting. A lot of people consider them fascist. Italy was fascist. Germany was socialist.
You need to find the person who taught you this, and demand an apology from them for how bad a teacher they were.
Do you believe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, or a republic?
Nazi translates directly to National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were wholly a socialist government except exclusive to who they were supporting. A lot of people consider them fascist. Italy was fascist. Germany was socialist.
The Nazi party was certainly fascist. Fascism does not necessarily exclude socialist ideas. The most defining traits of fascism are authoritarianism and nationalism, and that defines Nazi Germany...
Nazi translates directly to National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were wholly a socialist government except exclusive to who they were supporting. A lot of people consider them fascist. Italy was fascist. Germany was socialist.
The Nazi party was certainly fascist. Fascism does not necessarily exclude socialist ideas. The most defining traits of fascism are authoritarianism and nationalism, and that defines Nazi Germany fairly well. They sure took nationalism to new heights, that's for sure.
Nobody is talking about revolution here except for you. I don't know why you bring it up.
The Nazi economy was mostly capitalist. The leaders of the most successful corporations were usually party members and heavily involved in government, but commerce was not centrally planned and...
The Nazi economy was mostly capitalist. The leaders of the most successful corporations were usually party members and heavily involved in government, but commerce was not centrally planned and state run.
They additionally profited off of forced labour and 'buying' property that jewish people left behind when they had to flee or when they were deported to KZs.
They additionally profited off of forced labour and 'buying' property that jewish people left behind when they had to flee or when they were deported to KZs.
Nationalsozialismus is the German word, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. They were NOT socialist in any sence. Socialism usually means the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and...
Nationalsozialismus is the German word, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
They were NOT socialist in any sence.
Socialism usually means the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of worker ownership of the means of production, which did not happen with the Nazis.
Otherwise some people call it 'government regulations', which the Nazis only did when it benefited their populist agenda. Aside from that, they also cracked down on Labour Unions and put actual socialists in KZ Sachsenhausen.
With that said, the revolutionary (or radical, as it were) socialists tend to pervert any socialist movement they involve themselves with. If you do not play by their rules and toe their line, they consider you as an enemy to their cause.
What even is this based on? Now you're just throwing dirt on socialist movements without providing anything to back it up.
Reddit
Aside from me not necessarily agreeing with that, they did create r/debatecommunism for a reason, you know. It is not necessarily bad to want a place to discuss socialism among other socialists, if you leave room for discussion somewhere else.
If they're able to enact this on a political level, you will see a rise of labor camps and summary executions of people they consider unfriendly.
Now you are basing supposed inherent dictatorial parts of socialism on socialists 'perverting' any movement, which is in itself an unbased claim. Seems like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?
China
A country with a capitalist economy? Yes indeed, do you see how horribly a capitalist government treats their citizens?
Also, please take a look at the Chile of Allende. Salvador Allende was the first democratically elected marxist president in Latin America. He kept democracy while working on his socialist goals, and only after the military, backed by the USA, ousted the democratic president in 1973, was a dictatorship established led by Pinochet, which tortured thousands. Again: a democratically elected marxist was, undemocratically, ousted with support from the capitalist USA.
Socialism will never be viable as long as it is done at the barrel of a gun rather than through the good will of the constituency.
Exactly, like in the Chile of Allende untill the capitalist established tyranny.
Why do you guys always cling to Allende? I find that very curious. Out of all the socialist governments to have existed, don't you have one example of a functional implementation of the socialist...
Why do you guys always cling to Allende? I find that very curious. Out of all the socialist governments to have existed, don't you have one example of a functional implementation of the socialist model that was strong enough to survive the world around it without perverting its original intents or succumbing to outside pressure?
You can't just say "oh, it was the capitalists fault!" every single time socialism fails, which it always has done. Yes, the capitalist model has it's casualties, along with every other form of governance since the dawn of civilization.
It, also, isn't a false premise to say that the socialist model is heavily dependent on the revolutionary mindset. This was the very nature of Marx's philosophical analyses as well as Lenin's implementations.
You can argue it for as long as you want, and I can argue my stance for as long as I want. At the end of the day we will forever be locked in an impasse, because I have my perspectives and you have yours.
My beliefs in governance and functional systems can accommodate your existence without summarily executing or imprisoning you. Would your model of socialism allow for my continued, free, and unfettered existence, knowing that I will continue to propagate my beliefs?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps you should be running the show. If your answer is no, then you've proven my point about socialism being unable to survive without suppressing its ideological opponents.
As it stands, you live in a world where you are able to criticize the capitalist structure with no repercussions to your freedom, health, or safety. Could a capitalist say the same under the wing of a socialist system?
Edit; and for posterity's sake, the US stopped being a free market more than 100 years ago. Today, it is, effectively, an oligarchy.
Unfortunately, it’s “literally” how words work now. I agree that it is lazy, and a bit dumb, to reclaim a word with that much baggage. It’s just not smart branding, at least in the US.
That's not how words (should?) work.
Unfortunately, it’s “literally” how words work now. I agree that it is lazy, and a bit dumb, to reclaim a word with that much baggage. It’s just not smart branding, at least in the US.
Socialist International is 67 years old, and its predecessors going back farther than that by decades. Every movement evolves. Evolution happens in every political movement, and socialism's more...
Socialist International is 67 years old, and its predecessors going back farther than that by decades. Every movement evolves. Evolution happens in every political movement, and socialism's more or less evolved entirely into DemSoc.
It definitely has not. There are still five countries in the world practicing some form of Socialism (that is, actual socialism; state owned and centrally planned economies) right now. Are these...
socialism's more or less evolved entirely into DemSoc.
It definitely has not. There are still five countries in the world practicing some form of Socialism (that is, actual socialism; state owned and centrally planned economies) right now.
Are these countries actually not socialist because socialism now means "capitalism with high taxes and free college"?
Yes, and? That's(...intentionally?) missing the point, just a bit. 67 years old is likely longer than you've been alive, assuming you're an average forum user; and Progressive Alliance/Socialist...
Yes, and? That's(...intentionally?) missing the point, just a bit. 67 years old is likely longer than you've been alive, assuming you're an average forum user; and Progressive Alliance/Socialist International is by-and-far the most prominent brand of socialism at this point.
Socialists International/the Progressive Alliance isn't obscure whatsoever; and they aren't a party. They're a group of parties, inc. things like the Australian Labor Party (one of the biggest two...
Socialists International/the Progressive Alliance isn't obscure whatsoever; and they aren't a party. They're a group of parties, inc. things like the Australian Labor Party (one of the biggest two parties in the country.)
Reclaimed from who? Saint-Simon? Fourier? Marx? The people who invented socialism? I don't see a whole lot of value in redefining words to mean something entirely different. It's ambiguous at...
The word's been reclaimed, the definition's been solidified for decades now, and it's really high-time that people in America realise that
Reclaimed from who? Saint-Simon? Fourier? Marx? The people who invented socialism?
I don't see a whole lot of value in redefining words to mean something entirely different. It's ambiguous at best, and intentionally conniving at worst. "Democratic Socialist" is also a term that has already been in use for over 100 years as well, and still refers to public ownership of the means of production.
The term social democracy already exists to describe what you're talking about. I see no reason to change the meaning of already used terms to make something appear more radical, or whatever to goal is. If it doesn't refer to public ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism.
I don't know what's more frustrating, social democrats describing themselves as socialists or social democrats describing themselves as neoliberals. I really don't understand why the term is just...
I don't know what's more frustrating, social democrats describing themselves as socialists or social democrats describing themselves as neoliberals. I really don't understand why the term is just so aggressively unused in the United States, in spite of representing the views of the majority of its people.
There's been a very concentrated push from neoliberals pretending like they are compatible with the center left. It's propaganda. Neoliberals have been finally fingered as the cause of some of our...
There's been a very concentrated push from neoliberals pretending like they are compatible with the center left. It's propaganda. Neoliberals have been finally fingered as the cause of some of our rampant economic problems here in the States. They're trying to pretend like they aren't who we know they are so they can hold on to their near complete stranglehold of US economic policy.
Nobody who is left-wing economically is a neoliberal. We're (SocDem here) fundamentally opposed on most baseline economic policy positions.
I think they key word here is policy. Theories about the fundamental workings of the market economy are shared between both neo-liberals and soc dems, however the specifics and policy implications...
I think they key word here is policy. Theories about the fundamental workings of the market economy are shared between both neo-liberals and soc dems, however the specifics and policy implications are on very different sides.
I wasn't, just saying that's generally what I've seen come to mind in the minds of people who can't accept that the definition's changed over time. (Most notably, many Fox contributors.)
I wasn't, just saying that's generally what I've seen come to mind in the minds of people who can't accept that the definition's changed over time.
The article we're discussing includes a link to an article which explains the difference between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism". What you're describing is social democracy. It's the...
as Democratic Socialism is effectively "reasonable government regulation and social safety nets."
The article we're discussing includes a link to an article which explains the difference between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism". What you're describing is social democracy. It's the system epitomised by the Nordic countries.
Both socialism and capitalism are very broad terms, meaning different things in different times and places. In order to use those terms, the writer must first define which precise meaning he...
Both socialism and capitalism are very broad terms, meaning different things in different times and places. In order to use those terms, the writer must first define which precise meaning he intends to convey. So every discussion of capitalism and socialism is necessarily incomplete.
Then the right attempts to derail discussions with pointless grandstanding like "you used the word socialism at all, therefore you are only talking about the Soviet Union and/or Venezuela"...
Then the right attempts to derail discussions with pointless grandstanding like "you used the word socialism at all, therefore you are only talking about the Soviet Union and/or Venezuela" regardless of whether or not you prefixed your message with any academic definition clarifications.
Exactly, after destroying their reputation prior to Reagan, Republicans rebranded as “Compassionate Conservatives.” Then after Cheney & Co’s trillion dollar Iraq misadventure, and the biggest...
Exactly, after destroying their reputation prior to Reagan, Republicans rebranded as “Compassionate Conservatives.” Then after Cheney & Co’s trillion dollar Iraq misadventure, and the biggest economic disaster since The Great Depression, they rebranded as “The Tea Party.” Why are Democrats so bad at the game of branding?
Socially liberal (not for women and minorites, just so I can smoke weed), fiscally conservative (despite benefiting from living in a society built on a foundation of taxes, I'm economically illiterate and blindly apply criticism of taxes to any topic)
This is a really good point. It would be wonderful if articles that discuss these topics had a sidebar with their definitions of the broad terms they used, as they are often not dictionary...
This is a really good point. It would be wonderful if articles that discuss these topics had a sidebar with their definitions of the broad terms they used, as they are often not dictionary definitions.
Yeah... ultimately, though, I think it would be a good logical move if we just stopped using these terms altogether, replacing them with a plethora of more precise ones. They could even be...
Yeah... ultimately, though, I think it would be a good logical move if we just stopped using these terms altogether, replacing them with a plethora of more precise ones. They could even be qualifiers, like "pringles capitalism" or "marshmallow socialism" (just some silly ideas to illustrate...).
It's bizzare, but at least here in the US, socialism and communism are still taught extremely poorly. Right now I'm taking a Business class for college It's a basic fundamentals class, and I'm...
It's bizzare, but at least here in the US, socialism and communism are still taught extremely poorly.
Right now I'm taking a Business class for college It's a basic fundamentals class, and I'm only taking it because it is a graduation requirement. It has brief sections on socialism and communism in the chapter overviewing basic economics. There is only one citation for either section, and it is used to justify the statement that some socialist countries have taxes of 75%. Looking up the citation, I found that it was an op-ed on the french taxi unions that briefly mentioned that the country's previous president wanted to enact a 75% tax bracket for their richest citizens, which never actually happened.
Given that the book so far has been extremely basic, I would venture to guess that it's also used in some high school where insane school board members are still afraid of "the red threat", which drives me up the wall. It's been clear that the concepts of socialism and even communism have been used as political bogeymen for decades now. And the most terrifying part of that is that it makes it unclear if the GOP's obvious market manipulation is just simple corruption or if they actually believe the bullshit they spout.
Which is just 5% higher than the US had “when it was great,” the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. I imagine this was also conveniently not mentioned in your book?
There is only one citation for either section, and it is used to justify the statement that some socialist countries have taxes of 75%.
No, the book hasn't gotten to talking about taxes with any depth yet. To be fair, it did actually cover the downfalls of pure capitalism and asserts that a "mixed economy" is ideal, so the book...
No, the book hasn't gotten to talking about taxes with any depth yet.
To be fair, it did actually cover the downfalls of pure capitalism and asserts that a "mixed economy" is ideal, so the book isn't completely deplorable. But given that was the only citation that I have actually checked so far, I'm afraid of what I will find if I were to check more of them. But to be honest, that wasn't the first time I thought that the text may have been trying to be misleading. It mentioned productivity in terms of economics before it even used the word "economy".
Had the book at that point introduced the difference between marginal and effective tax rates? That seems to be the most common misunderstanding when discussing "high taxes" and it'd be very sad...
It has brief sections on socialism and communism in the chapter overviewing basic economics. There is only one citation for either section, and it is used to justify the statement that some socialist countries have taxes of 75%.
Had the book at that point introduced the difference between marginal and effective tax rates? That seems to be the most common misunderstanding when discussing "high taxes" and it'd be very sad if the book perpetuated that confusion rather than trying to address it.
This piece is almost a month old but does a decent job arguing a point that I keep trying to get across. I do find it odd and uncomfortable that it comes from this particular author, Will...
This piece is almost a month old but does a decent job arguing a point that I keep trying to get across. I do find it odd and uncomfortable that it comes from this particular author, Will Wilkinson, who has a strong history of work with right-leaning think tanks which I disagree with on the vast majority of issues. It is also interesting that he finds common ground with Elizabeth Warren's recent push to reform the US capitalist system. I must admit that I find it a bit heartening that things like this are coming from the right, though I certainly don't have much faith in the genuine nature of their arguments given my take on the history of right-wing rhetoric. What do you all think?
Is this a sign of a possible area of reform that may have bipartisan support?
Do people like the author have any pull in the Fox/Trump/GOP, tail wags the dog, era of right wing politics in the USA?
Can anyone point me to any other thoughtful pieces like this coming from left-leaning sources, or anywhere else for that matter?
Just want to point out, Wilkinson isn't really a right-winger. He's a neoliberal, which is distinct. If you look at his Twitter retweets, for example, he's basically exclusively retweeting...
Just want to point out, Wilkinson isn't really a right-winger. He's a neoliberal, which is distinct.
If you look at his Twitter retweets, for example, he's basically exclusively retweeting pro-Democrat Tweets. (IE, one making fun of Cruz saying that Beto was trying to turn Texas into California like that was a negative thing; and one for Zach Wahls's Iowa Senate campaign, given he's a Democrat. Not to mention the pro-Reality Winner and climate change prevention Tweets.
He's really just a by-the-books neolib, which is...really becoming pretty common: pretending to be centrist so you can make the weird-obnoxious-Right-Libertarian crowd like you; being effectively just a liberal, primarily left-wing, market lover.
There's a really weird, distinct subculture of them at this point. Sam Bowman and Noah Smith (less so Noah Smith) are other examples.
(And on the serious-but-also-can-tell-and-take-a-joke side, @ne0liberal on Twitter is great.)
EDIT: Like the conspiracy Cons adopted the weird red X emoji on Twitter, the neoliberals tend to use "🌐". It's pretty interesting, subculture-wise, in my opinion.
How are two brands of conservatism distinct from each other? What separates a conservative from a neoliberal, given that liberalism is a mainstay of conservatives around the world?
Just want to point out, Wilkinson isn't really a right-winger. He's a neoliberal, which is distinct.
How are two brands of conservatism distinct from each other? What separates a conservative from a neoliberal, given that liberalism is a mainstay of conservatives around the world?
Saying liberalism is conservative is a bit like saying anarchism is leftist; they do tend to lend each other to one side or the other, but they're more up and down versus left and right....
Saying liberalism is conservative is a bit like saying anarchism is leftist; they do tend to lend each other to one side or the other, but they're more up and down versus left and right. (Liberalism being more or less in the middle between "Anarchist" and "Centrist.")
If anything, I'd say your average liberal is centre-leaning if anything.
To put it in perspective, neoliberals are a lot closer to the Labor Party than the Liberal Party; being effectively "Democratic Socialism but We Also Really, Really Like Markets. Like We Really Really Really Like Markets. Markets Are So Good In Fact We Sho--" and etcetera.
The entire idea is basically just a more intense DemSoc platform but with a really, really strong obsession with markets. They really love markets. (So basically, Democratic Socialism for Economists.)
Effectively, if its members formed a political party rather than a political philosophy/movement, the resulting party would be in Socialists International/the Progressive Alliance.
But the Democratic Party thoroughly embraces the laissez-faire deregulation of classical liberalism. They may not be as publicly enthusiastic about it as the Republicans, but they still aspire...
But the Democratic Party thoroughly embraces the laissez-faire deregulation of classical liberalism. They may not be as publicly enthusiastic about it as the Republicans, but they still aspire toward a political landscape where their corporate donors run roughshod over toothless regulation. These two parties may sit at opposite ends of the Overton window, but that doesn't change the fact that the Overton window only stretches from Centre-Right to Far-Right.
Absolutely not; I find that trend relatively annoying, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Liberalism also focuses on individual freedoms, and is as much a moral philosophy as an...
I just want to make sure you aren't conflating a liberal (generally considered a supporter of the Democratic Party) and liberalism,
Absolutely not; I find that trend relatively annoying, too.
Because the way you structured your paragraph makes it sound like you are,
Liberalism also focuses on individual freedoms, and is as much a moral philosophy as an economic one. The United States' Democratic Party's flavour of it focuses on neither.
especially when you go on to suggest that neoliberalism has a lot in line with progressivism. I don't agree with this at all, given that neoliberalism has very little concern with social goals outside of general liberty, and progressivism almost always includes more market regulation or government intervention to supply rights and amenities to the people.
If you look at any of the neoliberals mentioned in this thread thus far, you'll notice every single one of them pushes market regulation and extreme social safety nets.
Thanks for your explainer. I'm not sure I agree though, seeing as liberalism is a cornerstone of conservatives economic policy, and neoliberalism is, for all intents and purposes, liberalism in a...
Thanks for your explainer. I'm not sure I agree though, seeing as liberalism is a cornerstone of conservatives economic policy, and neoliberalism is, for all intents and purposes, liberalism in a new suit.
It's an inherently right wing/conservative "philosophy".
Neoliberalism isn't, for all intents and purposes, liberalism in a new suit. I really recommend reading the ideas of these people, as you seem to have a fairly innaccurate model of them in your head.
Neoliberalism isn't, for all intents and purposes, liberalism in a new suit. I really recommend reading the ideas of these people, as you seem to have a fairly innaccurate model of them in your head.
I have, multiple times in this thread? To quote myself: Given he was ignoring everything else I had said, I didn't particularly think repeating myself would have changed a thing. Nah, I don't see...
How about explaining why they're wrong instead of just saying they are?
I have, multiple times in this thread? To quote myself:
To put it in perspective, neoliberals are a lot closer to the Labor Party than the Liberal Party; being effectively "Democratic Socialism but We Also Really, Really Like Markets. Like We Really Really Really Like Markets. Markets Are So Good In Fact We Sho--" and etcetera.
The entire idea is basically just a more intense DemSoc platform but with a really, really strong obsession with markets. They really love markets. (So basically, Democratic Socialism for Economists.)
Effectively, if its members formed a political party rather than a political philosophy/movement, the resulting party would be in Socialists International/the Progressive Alliance.
He's really just a by-the-books neolib, which is...really becoming pretty common: pretending to be centrist so you can make the weird-obnoxious-Right-Libertarian crowd like you; being effectively just a liberal, primarily left-wing, market lover.
There's a really weird, distinct subculture of them at this point. Sam Bowman and Noah Smith (less so Noah Smith) are other examples.
Given he was ignoring everything else I had said, I didn't particularly think repeating myself would have changed a thing.
And this may seem petty to you but i dont think people appreciate "That clear things up a bit?" being said to them, it's pretty condescending.
Nah, I don't see it as petty to call out perceived condescension, but the statement absolutely wasn't intended to be condescending, and I have a feeling it didn't come out that way.
It absolutely came off as condescending, to my eye. Anytime you're in any sort of disagreement with someone, explaining your position then asking "That clear things up a bit?" will be...
Nah, I don't see it as petty to call out perceived condescension, but the statement absolutely wasn't intended to be condescending, and I have a feeling it didn't come out that way.
It absolutely came off as condescending, to my eye. Anytime you're in any sort of disagreement with someone, explaining your position then asking "That clear things up a bit?" will be condescending.
It has connotations that you don't see the conversation as between two equals, but that instead you see your role as explaining the way the way the world is to someone less educated or informed than you are.
Neoliberalism isn't left-wing liberalism. It is right-wing liberalism. Period. Full stop. Just like there are a ton of SocDems incorrectly calling themselves DemSocs, there are a bunch of...
Neoliberalism isn't left-wing liberalism. It is right-wing liberalism. Period. Full stop. Just like there are a ton of SocDems incorrectly calling themselves DemSocs, there are a bunch of left-wing liberals incorrectly calling themselves neoliberals.
There is a ton of overlap between left-wing liberals like Obama and HRC and social democrats as they are differing forms of center left. Social democracy and neoliberalism have almost no overlap, at all.
pretending to be centrist so you can make the weird-obnoxious-Right-Libertarian crowd like you; being effectively just a liberal, primarily left-wing, market lover.
It's actually the exact opposite of that. Neoliberals have more actual policy in common with libertarians but they like to pretend to be down with the center left. Thankfully people are starting to see through their facade and concentrate on the policy that comes out of them.
This is a propaganda campaign being waged by neoliberals after they have been increasingly and correctly fingered as one of the main causes of a lot of our current economic problems (especially wrt rampant inequality). Even the neoliberal-posterboy IMF recognizes this.
If you're not primarily pushing for deregulation and privatization, you are not a neoliberal. If you're down with Hillary or Obama, you're probably not a neoliberal. That shitbag Joe Lieberman was a neoliberal.
Modern socialism is more or less fully removed from National Socialism-style socialism; as Democratic Socialism is effectively "reasonable government regulation and social safety nets." Even Socialist International, by far the most popular Socialist movement, is more or less entirely that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the most well-known socialist in the United States presently, is a Democratic Socialist, for example.
The word's been reclaimed, the definition's been solidified for decades now, and it's really high-time that people in America realise that.
If you look at the parties in the Progressive Alliance & Socialist International, you'll notice that they support more or less entirely what Wilkinson's referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Alliance
National Socialism was never socialism, it was fascism, a far-right ideology.
It's been a mess ever since Lenin started to draw a distinction between socialism and communism. I'd rather be specific and keep the distinction between demsoc and revolutionary socialism, they really are different things. That or the left could try to reclaim "communism", but that seems like an uphill battle. Maybe a new word altogether would be better, free from the burdens of the 20th century.
And I'm not sure why you brought up nazism.
NatSoc is what generally comes up in the mind of people who have a "It Only Means One Thing" mindset, as you seemed to be showing, so I assumed. Apparently, that assumption was incorrect, so I apologise for that.
Though your opinions/wants don't really change common usage and understanding of a word. I'd rather the word "Conservative" meant small-government, but it doesn't, for example.
Sure, but there's still a large group of people using "socialism" in the revolutionary sense, so imo it makes sense to continue to push for what I think is the proper meaning.
That's a fair perspective, yeah, and I can definitely appreciate it (it probably would have been optimal to do that when the modern socialist movement got started, for example, buuuut...for whatever reason, they didn't. My argument's moreover about how it's a bit too late for that); but language changes with the majority; and the majority of people seem to use it in the modern sense.
Nazi translates directly to National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were wholly a socialist government except exclusive to who they were supporting. A lot of people consider them fascist. Italy was fascist. Germany was socialist.
With that said, the revolutionary (or radical, as it were) socialists tend to pervert any socialist movement they involve themselves with. If you do not play by their rules and toe their line, they consider you as an enemy to their cause. On Reddit, for example, you can't even participate in a meaningful debate on communism or socialism on their turf. If you don't agree, you get banned. End of story.
If they're able to enact this on a political level, you will see a rise of labor camps and summary executions of people they consider unfriendly. It has already been done, and the results are well documented. It is still happening in China and their dissidents are punished in extremely cruel ways. For example, they are often tortured in to making public statements saying they were wrong and professing the validity of their government (eg, George Orwells "1984").
Demsoc is double plus good, btw. Of course, not really. Orwell wasn't an advocate of that manner of speaking, despite being a socialist, himself.
Socialism will never be viable as long as it is done at the barrel of a gun rather than through the good will of the constituency.
You need to find the person who taught you this, and demand an apology from them for how bad a teacher they were.
Do you believe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, or a republic?
The Nazi party was certainly fascist. Fascism does not necessarily exclude socialist ideas. The most defining traits of fascism are authoritarianism and nationalism, and that defines Nazi Germany fairly well. They sure took nationalism to new heights, that's for sure.
Nobody is talking about revolution here except for you. I don't know why you bring it up.
Might want to look up some facts or history. The socialists were purged from the party early on, and they weren't socialists at all following that.
The Nazi economy was mostly capitalist. The leaders of the most successful corporations were usually party members and heavily involved in government, but commerce was not centrally planned and state run.
They additionally profited off of forced labour and 'buying' property that jewish people left behind when they had to flee or when they were deported to KZs.
Nationalsozialismus is the German word, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
They were NOT socialist in any sence.
Socialism usually means the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of worker ownership of the means of production, which did not happen with the Nazis.
Otherwise some people call it 'government regulations', which the Nazis only did when it benefited their populist agenda. Aside from that, they also cracked down on Labour Unions and put actual socialists in KZ Sachsenhausen.
What even is this based on? Now you're just throwing dirt on socialist movements without providing anything to back it up.
Aside from me not necessarily agreeing with that, they did create r/debatecommunism for a reason, you know. It is not necessarily bad to want a place to discuss socialism among other socialists, if you leave room for discussion somewhere else.
Now you are basing supposed inherent dictatorial parts of socialism on socialists 'perverting' any movement, which is in itself an unbased claim. Seems like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?
A country with a capitalist economy? Yes indeed, do you see how horribly a capitalist government treats their citizens?
Also, please take a look at the Chile of Allende. Salvador Allende was the first democratically elected marxist president in Latin America. He kept democracy while working on his socialist goals, and only after the military, backed by the USA, ousted the democratic president in 1973, was a dictatorship established led by Pinochet, which tortured thousands. Again: a democratically elected marxist was, undemocratically, ousted with support from the capitalist USA.
Exactly, like in the Chile of Allende untill the capitalist established tyranny.
Why do you guys always cling to Allende? I find that very curious. Out of all the socialist governments to have existed, don't you have one example of a functional implementation of the socialist model that was strong enough to survive the world around it without perverting its original intents or succumbing to outside pressure?
You can't just say "oh, it was the capitalists fault!" every single time socialism fails, which it always has done. Yes, the capitalist model has it's casualties, along with every other form of governance since the dawn of civilization.
It, also, isn't a false premise to say that the socialist model is heavily dependent on the revolutionary mindset. This was the very nature of Marx's philosophical analyses as well as Lenin's implementations.
You can argue it for as long as you want, and I can argue my stance for as long as I want. At the end of the day we will forever be locked in an impasse, because I have my perspectives and you have yours.
My beliefs in governance and functional systems can accommodate your existence without summarily executing or imprisoning you. Would your model of socialism allow for my continued, free, and unfettered existence, knowing that I will continue to propagate my beliefs?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps you should be running the show. If your answer is no, then you've proven my point about socialism being unable to survive without suppressing its ideological opponents.
As it stands, you live in a world where you are able to criticize the capitalist structure with no repercussions to your freedom, health, or safety. Could a capitalist say the same under the wing of a socialist system?
Edit; and for posterity's sake, the US stopped being a free market more than 100 years ago. Today, it is, effectively, an oligarchy.
Unfortunately, it’s “literally” how words work now. I agree that it is lazy, and a bit dumb, to reclaim a word with that much baggage. It’s just not smart branding, at least in the US.
Socialist International is 67 years old, and its predecessors going back farther than that by decades. Every movement evolves. Evolution happens in every political movement, and socialism's more or less evolved entirely into DemSoc.
It definitely has not. There are still five countries in the world practicing some form of Socialism (that is, actual socialism; state owned and centrally planned economies) right now.
Are these countries actually not socialist because socialism now means "capitalism with high taxes and free college"?
Yes, and? That's(...intentionally?) missing the point, just a bit. 67 years old is likely longer than you've been alive, assuming you're an average forum user; and Progressive Alliance/Socialist International is by-and-far the most prominent brand of socialism at this point.
Socialists International/the Progressive Alliance isn't obscure whatsoever; and they aren't a party. They're a group of parties, inc. things like the Australian Labor Party (one of the biggest two parties in the country.)
Reclaimed from who? Saint-Simon? Fourier? Marx? The people who invented socialism?
I don't see a whole lot of value in redefining words to mean something entirely different. It's ambiguous at best, and intentionally conniving at worst. "Democratic Socialist" is also a term that has already been in use for over 100 years as well, and still refers to public ownership of the means of production.
The term social democracy already exists to describe what you're talking about. I see no reason to change the meaning of already used terms to make something appear more radical, or whatever to goal is. If it doesn't refer to public ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism.
I don't know what's more frustrating, social democrats describing themselves as socialists or social democrats describing themselves as neoliberals. I really don't understand why the term is just so aggressively unused in the United States, in spite of representing the views of the majority of its people.
There's been a very concentrated push from neoliberals pretending like they are compatible with the center left. It's propaganda. Neoliberals have been finally fingered as the cause of some of our rampant economic problems here in the States. They're trying to pretend like they aren't who we know they are so they can hold on to their near complete stranglehold of US economic policy.
Nobody who is left-wing economically is a neoliberal. We're (SocDem here) fundamentally opposed on most baseline economic policy positions.
I think they key word here is policy. Theories about the fundamental workings of the market economy are shared between both neo-liberals and soc dems, however the specifics and policy implications are on very different sides.
You can't be serious that you're starting an argument implying that the "original" form of socialism is "National Socialism".
I wasn't, just saying that's generally what I've seen come to mind in the minds of people who can't accept that the definition's changed over time.
(Most notably, many Fox contributors.)
I think Stalinism and the Soviet system are more what people with a negative view of socialism connect it with though, even Fox contributors.
The article we're discussing includes a link to an article which explains the difference between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism". What you're describing is social democracy. It's the system epitomised by the Nordic countries.
Both socialism and capitalism are very broad terms, meaning different things in different times and places. In order to use those terms, the writer must first define which precise meaning he intends to convey. So every discussion of capitalism and socialism is necessarily incomplete.
Then the right attempts to derail discussions with pointless grandstanding like "you used the word socialism at all, therefore you are only talking about the Soviet Union and/or Venezuela" regardless of whether or not you prefixed your message with any academic definition clarifications.
Exactly, after destroying their reputation prior to Reagan, Republicans rebranded as “Compassionate Conservatives.” Then after Cheney & Co’s trillion dollar Iraq misadventure, and the biggest economic disaster since The Great Depression, they rebranded as “The Tea Party.” Why are Democrats so bad at the game of branding?
And then there's the biggest, dumbest, most meaningless catchphrase of recent times
This is a really good point. It would be wonderful if articles that discuss these topics had a sidebar with their definitions of the broad terms they used, as they are often not dictionary definitions.
Yeah... ultimately, though, I think it would be a good logical move if we just stopped using these terms altogether, replacing them with a plethora of more precise ones. They could even be qualifiers, like "pringles capitalism" or "marshmallow socialism" (just some silly ideas to illustrate...).
It's bizzare, but at least here in the US, socialism and communism are still taught extremely poorly.
Right now I'm taking a Business class for college It's a basic fundamentals class, and I'm only taking it because it is a graduation requirement. It has brief sections on socialism and communism in the chapter overviewing basic economics. There is only one citation for either section, and it is used to justify the statement that some socialist countries have taxes of 75%. Looking up the citation, I found that it was an op-ed on the french taxi unions that briefly mentioned that the country's previous president wanted to enact a 75% tax bracket for their richest citizens, which never actually happened.
Given that the book so far has been extremely basic, I would venture to guess that it's also used in some high school where insane school board members are still afraid of "the red threat", which drives me up the wall. It's been clear that the concepts of socialism and even communism have been used as political bogeymen for decades now. And the most terrifying part of that is that it makes it unclear if the GOP's obvious market manipulation is just simple corruption or if they actually believe the bullshit they spout.
Which is just 5% higher than the US had “when it was great,” the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s.
I imagine this was also conveniently not mentioned in your book?
No, the book hasn't gotten to talking about taxes with any depth yet.
To be fair, it did actually cover the downfalls of pure capitalism and asserts that a "mixed economy" is ideal, so the book isn't completely deplorable. But given that was the only citation that I have actually checked so far, I'm afraid of what I will find if I were to check more of them. But to be honest, that wasn't the first time I thought that the text may have been trying to be misleading. It mentioned productivity in terms of economics before it even used the word "economy".
Had the book at that point introduced the difference between marginal and effective tax rates? That seems to be the most common misunderstanding when discussing "high taxes" and it'd be very sad if the book perpetuated that confusion rather than trying to address it.
This piece is almost a month old but does a decent job arguing a point that I keep trying to get across. I do find it odd and uncomfortable that it comes from this particular author, Will Wilkinson, who has a strong history of work with right-leaning think tanks which I disagree with on the vast majority of issues. It is also interesting that he finds common ground with Elizabeth Warren's recent push to reform the US capitalist system. I must admit that I find it a bit heartening that things like this are coming from the right, though I certainly don't have much faith in the genuine nature of their arguments given my take on the history of right-wing rhetoric. What do you all think?
Is this a sign of a possible area of reform that may have bipartisan support?
Do people like the author have any pull in the Fox/Trump/GOP, tail wags the dog, era of right wing politics in the USA?
Can anyone point me to any other thoughtful pieces like this coming from left-leaning sources, or anywhere else for that matter?
Just want to point out, Wilkinson isn't really a right-winger. He's a neoliberal, which is distinct.
If you look at his Twitter retweets, for example, he's basically exclusively retweeting pro-Democrat Tweets. (IE, one making fun of Cruz saying that Beto was trying to turn Texas into California like that was a negative thing; and one for Zach Wahls's Iowa Senate campaign, given he's a Democrat. Not to mention the pro-Reality Winner and climate change prevention Tweets.
He's really just a by-the-books neolib, which is...really becoming pretty common: pretending to be centrist so you can make the weird-obnoxious-Right-Libertarian crowd like you; being effectively just a liberal, primarily left-wing, market lover.
There's a really weird, distinct subculture of them at this point. Sam Bowman and Noah Smith (less so Noah Smith) are other examples.
(And on the serious-but-also-can-tell-and-take-a-joke side, @ne0liberal on Twitter is great.)
EDIT: Like the conspiracy Cons adopted the weird red X emoji on Twitter, the neoliberals tend to use "🌐". It's pretty interesting, subculture-wise, in my opinion.
How are two brands of conservatism distinct from each other? What separates a conservative from a neoliberal, given that liberalism is a mainstay of conservatives around the world?
Saying liberalism is conservative is a bit like saying anarchism is leftist; they do tend to lend each other to one side or the other, but they're more up and down versus left and right. (Liberalism being more or less in the middle between "Anarchist" and "Centrist.")
If anything, I'd say your average liberal is centre-leaning if anything.
To put it in perspective, neoliberals are a lot closer to the Labor Party than the Liberal Party; being effectively "Democratic Socialism but We Also Really, Really Like Markets. Like We Really Really Really Like Markets. Markets Are So Good In Fact We Sho--" and etcetera.
The entire idea is basically just a more intense DemSoc platform but with a really, really strong obsession with markets. They really love markets. (So basically, Democratic Socialism for Economists.)
Effectively, if its members formed a political party rather than a political philosophy/movement, the resulting party would be in Socialists International/the Progressive Alliance.
That clear things up a bit?
But the Democratic Party thoroughly embraces the laissez-faire deregulation of classical liberalism. They may not be as publicly enthusiastic about it as the Republicans, but they still aspire toward a political landscape where their corporate donors run roughshod over toothless regulation. These two parties may sit at opposite ends of the Overton window, but that doesn't change the fact that the Overton window only stretches from Centre-Right to Far-Right.
Absolutely not; I find that trend relatively annoying, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberalism also focuses on individual freedoms, and is as much a moral philosophy as an economic one. The United States' Democratic Party's flavour of it focuses on neither.
If you look at any of the neoliberals mentioned in this thread thus far, you'll notice every single one of them pushes market regulation and extreme social safety nets.
Thanks for your explainer. I'm not sure I agree though, seeing as liberalism is a cornerstone of conservatives economic policy, and neoliberalism is, for all intents and purposes, liberalism in a new suit.
It's an inherently right wing/conservative "philosophy".
Neoliberalism isn't, for all intents and purposes, liberalism in a new suit. I really recommend reading the ideas of these people, as you seem to have a fairly innaccurate model of them in your head.
I have, multiple times in this thread? To quote myself:
Given he was ignoring everything else I had said, I didn't particularly think repeating myself would have changed a thing.
Nah, I don't see it as petty to call out perceived condescension, but the statement absolutely wasn't intended to be condescending, and I have a feeling it didn't come out that way.
It absolutely came off as condescending, to my eye. Anytime you're in any sort of disagreement with someone, explaining your position then asking "That clear things up a bit?" will be condescending.
It has connotations that you don't see the conversation as between two equals, but that instead you see your role as explaining the way the way the world is to someone less educated or informed than you are.
It definitely came across as condescending and dismissive.
I have a very good idea of what neoliberalism is, thanks.
Neoliberalism isn't left-wing liberalism. It is right-wing liberalism. Period. Full stop. Just like there are a ton of SocDems incorrectly calling themselves DemSocs, there are a bunch of left-wing liberals incorrectly calling themselves neoliberals.
There is a ton of overlap between left-wing liberals like Obama and HRC and social democrats as they are differing forms of center left. Social democracy and neoliberalism have almost no overlap, at all.
It's actually the exact opposite of that. Neoliberals have more actual policy in common with libertarians but they like to pretend to be down with the center left. Thankfully people are starting to see through their facade and concentrate on the policy that comes out of them.
This is a propaganda campaign being waged by neoliberals after they have been increasingly and correctly fingered as one of the main causes of a lot of our current economic problems (especially wrt rampant inequality). Even the neoliberal-posterboy IMF recognizes this.
If you're not primarily pushing for deregulation and privatization, you are not a neoliberal. If you're down with Hillary or Obama, you're probably not a neoliberal. That shitbag Joe Lieberman was a neoliberal.