[Tiresomehoopla]

So while I claim socialism as my ideology, I have been told by some that my beliefs are closer to that of social democracy. Which is why I posted this thread. Anyways, what is the difference, if any, between socialism and social democracy? Can capitalism/Currency exist in a socialist framework without being called social democracy? And which system is better?

[Dagoth Ur]

You cannot have socialist capitalism obviously. Social-democrats are capitalists who think that you can reform capitalism away from oppression. Socialists are those that understand that capitalism is inherently oppressive and that private property must be socialized (ie no more capitalism even if it does bleed over in the transition a little bit).

[Csareo]

You cannot have socialist capitalism obviously. Social-democrats are capitalists who think that you can reform capitalism away from oppression. Socialists are those that understand that capitalism is inherently oppressive and that private property must be socialized (ie no more capitalism even if it does bleed over in the transition a little bit).

What do you mean you can not have socio-capitalism. Its simple, you just redistribute wealth as stimuli to the bottom, equalize the deficit, and create a new one by deflation. Rinse and repeat for eternity.

[Dagoth Ur]

There is no way to ever accomplish such a thing. Who's wealth will be redistributed? Why would they allow that? Why should the workers persist in capitalism? Welfare Capitalism is possible but that is a policy that will eternally result in Thatcherite/Reaganite fiscal-conservatism and doesn't really distribute wealth down to the people.

[fuser]

Its simple, you just redistribute wealth as stimuli to the bottom

This is not socialism. Marxist are against this sort of "wealth distribution".

[Dagoth Ur]

Not to mention that real wealth, private property, would never be redistributed anyways. Just paper money.

[Csareo]

Its simple, you just redistribute wealth as stimuli to the bottom

This is not socialism. Marxist are against this sort of "wealth distribution".

The word socialism was tagged before Marxism, so no. The origins of the word socialism actually originate in revolutionary France, where common social ownership was developed. And I was not talking about socialism, but instead, socio-capitalism.

[Dagoth Ur]

Which doesn't exist, never has existed, and cannot exist. You are talking about some kind of Utopian Capitalism it seems like.

[fuser]

The word socialism was tagged before Marxism,

So? Please do tell what kind of specific socialism you were talking about as clearly in modern world socialism is intertwined with Marxism.

And I was not talking about socialism, but instead, socio-capitalism.

Yes you were talking about some sort of capitalism, that's all right. But it ain't socialism as Dagoth already said. Just putting "socio" before it doesn't make it so.

[Csareo]

The word socialism was tagged before Marxism,

So? Please do tell what kind of specific socialism you were talking about as clearly in modern world socialism is intertwined with Marxism.

Socio-capitalism? I think you know what I'm talking about, but I'm not sure. Alright, the base belief of socio-capitalism, is that neither socialism or capitalism can work alone. If you have to much capitalism, then the money will flow to the top. If you have to much socialism, the wealth gets spread thin. You need both to even each other out, such as strong monetary policy, and certain national industries.

EX: Government Education

The United States is technically a socio-capitalist country, with high emphasis on capitalism

And I was not talking about socialism, but instead, socio-capitalism.

Yes you were talking about some sort of capitalism, that's all right. But it ain't socialism as Dagoth already said. Just putting "socio" before it doesn't make it so.

Of course its not pure socialism, but elements of socialism. Socialism is not the same thing as communism. Here are the definitions....

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


om·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Socio-Capitalists seek to have nationalalizeed business, IE the Federal Reserve, coinsist with the free market, IE PNC bank.

[fuser]

Socio-capitalism? I think you know what I'm talking about

What? You claimed that Marxism is not the only socialism hence my conceptualization was wrong. So, I asked you what kind of non marxist socialism you are talking about? And then you once again pointed me to this some sort of "utopian capitalism" which is clearly not socialism as you yourself said i.e. it is some sort of mixture of both.

The United States is technically a socio-capitalist country, with high emphasis on capitalism

Socialism is not the same thing as communism.

And who said it was? Socialism is the transition stage through which stage of Communism is reached. They are not one and same, this is basic marxist concept.

[Csareo]

Socio-capitalism? I think you know what I'm talking about

What? You claimed that Marxism is not the only socialism hence my conceptualization was wrong. So, I asked you what kind of non marxist socialism you are talking about? And then you once again pointed me to this some sort of "utopian capitalism" which is clearly not socialism as you yourself said i.e. it is some sort of mixture of both.

You mean the one that developed in France. It was basic egalitarianism where revolutionary communities got together in common ownership. The idea was brought up by several philosophers before Marx, but I have not read any of their works. Marx was the one to tag communism, not the word socialism. ct

The United States is technically a socio-capitalist country, with high emphasis on capitalism

lol what? We have nationalized government controlled business (Remember United Fruit?), like the Federal Reserve, Subsidized and funded college education, and a strong monetary policy. Monetary policy is a socialist one, but its hard to convince you, because you are of the opinion communism and socialism are the same, and there is no inbetween.

Socialism is not the same thing as communism.

And who said it was? Socialism is the transition stage through which stage of Communism is reached. They are not one and same, this is basic marxist concept.

This is where all the disagreement stems from, so it was useless to debate my several other premises if they all rely on yours. I am sorry, but socialism is, like the definition says, a economic system where the whole controls the enterprise. It is not a process. And for the hell of it, here's another definition for you to dispute....

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies -Merriam Webster

If your done dropping my points, you can clearly see, that socialism is any form of government ownership.

[Bounce]

I think he's talking about Norway, using natural resources for government spending. Thus having capitalism running along side 'socialism', allowing 'fair' access to work and health resources. Obviously this is without having any structural changes to access to work and retaining a wealth and power barrier.

In my experience this is a rather standard view of 'socialism' from people who haven't really studied it.

[Csareo]

I think he's talking about Norway, using natural resources for government spending. Thus having capitalism running along side 'socialism', allowing 'fair' access to work and health resources. Obviously this is without having any structural changes to access to work and retaining a wealth and power barrier.

In my experience this is a rather standard view of 'socialism' from people who haven't really studied it.

No actually, I define socialism in the way Oxford and Webster does. Exactly as it is in the above two definitions. Perhaps John Oxford is the one who hasn't studied socialism.

[fuser]

You mean the one that developed in France. It was basic egalitarianism where revolutionary communities got together in common ownership. The idea was brought up by several philosophers before Marx, but I have not read any of their works.

I don't mean nothing. You were the one saying that you disregard my statements regarding socialism because mine is marxist one and there are other different socialism too. I am simply asking you then, what other socialism you were talking about if not marxism?

ol what? We have nationalized government controlled business

Nationalization =/= Socialism. Now before you again tell me about non marxist socialism, please specifically specify what other socialism you are thinking of.

Plus with this ridiculous criteria, every country is socialist, which makes no sense.

This is where all the disagreement stems from, so it was useless to debate my several other premises if they all rely on yours. I am sorry, but socialism is, like the definition says, a economic system where the whole controls the enterprise. It is not a process.

Of course its a process as well as an economic system. Why the two must remain entirely different entity? Also form you merrian webster only

"a system of society or group living in which there is no private property "

"a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done "

Also seeing that I didn't disregard John Oxford's definition, this is just straw man.







Beside, you really need to read more about socialism than just definitions. Many things will be cleared, literally everything you have described in this so called "socio capitalism" is not socialism but just popular caricature of socialism.

[Bounce]

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

You can't hold the means of production communally while allowing it to be held privately. It's a contradiction in terms.

The aim of a socially owned factory isn't to maximise output; its to provide a proper standard of living while satisfying consumer needs. Private ownership does the opposite and would ruin socially owned production.

[Paradigm]

Social democracy has its ideological foundations in Eduard Bernstein, who had studied Marx and agreed with the goal of socialism, but rejected the ideas of historical materialism and its concept of base and superstructure. As such, he believed that socialism could be achieved by incremental legislative reforms. Social democracy did well in Western Europe for much of the 20th century, but now we are seeing it dismantled by austerity measures. This can be seen as the inevitable results of globalization, as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had serve as a bulwark against unmitigated capitalism.

[Tiresomehoopla]

So? Please do tell what kind of specific socialism you were talking about as clearly in modern world socialism is intertwined with Marxism.

I claim Democratic Socialism as my ideology. As for private property, i'm currently divided in my stance on that.

[redcarpet]

They're incompatible. Departure of socialism by traditionally major left-of-centre parties is partly why they lose elections. Why did the UK Labour Party suffer leakage of working-class voters to the BNP? Easy, it dropped left-wing policies and opposition to tight immigration to placate right-wing swinging voters in south-east England.

[Negotiator]

What do you mean you can not have socio-capitalism. Its simple, you just redistribute wealth as stimuli to the bottom, equalize the deficit, and create a new one by deflation. Rinse and repeat for eternity.

Um, well, yeah. If we would all be angels, any form of society can work. Even capitalism. And politics could be ruled by rational thought, instead of by interests.

But unfortunately you ignore the fact that capitalism means an invisible rulership of the capitalists through their economic power, which translates into political power, for example simply because if they dont like the state of one country, they can remove employment from it and move it elsewhere.

Additionally, capitalists own the media and can pay armies of experts and other lobbyists, if not even the political parties themselves directly.

Additionally, those that are rich are selected by their greed and corruption, not by other virtues. For example, Microsoft didnt turned Windows into the world leaders of operating systems by being better than Apple, IBM OS2, Linux, Atari, Amiga and other operating systems. They abused monopolist powers to do so. Thus the chance of the rich actually being angels isnt that good, really.