democratic socialism

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2003-05-23 12:55pm

*sighs* Simon, there's a difference between a words literal meaning, and the context it is used in in political slang today. Just look at the word 'liberal' you could probably find about eight completely different meanings for it depending on how it's used. (For instance, a neo-liberal is a right wing, socially conservative free-marketeer, where as a "liberal" in the American context is basicly anyone left of centre-right.

)

Lord Sander · Post by **Lord Sander** » 2003-05-23 01:02pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:That's not really socialism, it's more akin to capitalism with socialist elements.

Neither is national socialism really socialism. It's just a name

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-23 02:15pm

Lord Sander wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote:That's not really socialism, it's more akin to capitalism with socialist elements.
Neither is national socialism really socialism. It's just a name

Your statement is not totally true - Hitler drew a lot of his inspiration from Lenin.

Tatterdemalion wrote: Simon, there's a difference between a words literal meaning, and the context it is used in in political slang today. Just look at the word 'liberal' you could probably find about eight completely different meanings for it depending on how it's used.

But then, wouldn't "democratic collectivism" be more fitting for those democratic so-called "socialists" this thread was about in the first place?

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-23 03:27pm

they dont want collectiveism.

And durran, regarldess of whether the method the political compass people use to determine your position, the idea of having a different axis from simple left/right is a good one. Left/Righ doesnt include the fact that you do have libertarians and authoritarians among each economic point of view.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-05-23 03:44pm

weemadando wrote:Service? Predating facism? Are you out of your fucking mind? The United States wasn't even formed, the America's not even fucking DISCOVERED by Western Civilizations when Facism was created.

Fascism was invented by Mussolini in the 1930s, and perfected by Hitler. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, has pretty much existed for all of human history, but it's not the same thing as fascism.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-23 10:13pm

weemadando wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:The USPS predates fascism. That the United States does a few of the same things that fascist governments do does not mean those things are inherently fascist.
The United States Postal Service? Predating facism? Are you out of your fucking mind? The United States wasn't even formed, the America's not even fucking DISCOVERED by Western Civilizations when Facism was created.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-23 10:18pm

And durran, regarldess of whether the method the political compass people use to determine your position, the idea of having a different axis from simple left/right is a good one. Left/Righ doesnt include the fact that you do have libertarians and authoritarians among each economic point of view.

Any political alignment test in which hardcore Marxist collectivists can claim the title "Leftist Libertarian" is fucked up. Libertarianism does not simply imply social liberty, economic liberty is essential as well in the body of thought.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-23 11:15pm

Durran Korr wrote:The USPS predates fascism. That the United States does a few of the same things that fascist governments do does not mean those things are inherently fascist.

The USPS itself predates fascism, but the newer "privatized" USPS occured in the 1960s.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-05-24 01:28am

Andrew J. wrote:
weemadando wrote:Service? Predating facism? Are you out of your fucking mind? The United States wasn't even formed, the America's not even fucking DISCOVERED by Western Civilizations when Facism was created.
Fascism was invented by Mussolini in the 1930s, and perfected by Hitler. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, has pretty much existed for all of human history, but it's not the same thing as fascism.

Facism is a new word for old values, it was created to lend an air of credence to the authoritarian states seekign to make themselves sound better. The Romans were a VERY facist nation, as were many of the other classical and pre-classical societies.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-24 01:38am

weemadando wrote:Facism is a new word for old values, it was created to lend an air of credence to the authoritarian states seekign to make themselves sound better. The Romans were a VERY facist nation, as were many of the other classical and pre-classical societies.

I don't know if you can call Rome fascist, per se. They had their share of dictators, but they always had a Senate and other elaborate representation for the people. Plus, emperors that got too big for their togas had a way of being assassinated if they didn't serve the interests of others (to the point that becoming emperor was practically a death sentence during some periods of the Empire).

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-05-24 02:29am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
weemadando wrote:Facism is a new word for old values, it was created to lend an air of credence to the authoritarian states seekign to make themselves sound better. The Romans were a VERY facist nation, as were many of the other classical and pre-classical societies.
I don't know if you can call Rome fascist, per se. They had their share of dictators, but they always had a Senate and other elaborate representation for the people. Plus, emperors that got too big for their togas had a way of being assassinated if they didn't serve the interests of others (to the point that becoming emperor was practically a death sentence during some periods of the Empire).

Facism doesn't imply a dictator, facism implies extreme nationalism and national control of society and industries. And the majority of the time during the Roman EMPIRE, not the Roman REPUBLIC, the Senate was the Senate in name only. Hence Rome, can, under the modern defination, be facist.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-05-24 07:13am

weemadando wrote: Facism is a new word for old values, it was created to lend an air of credence to the authoritarian states seekign to make themselves sound better. The Romans were a VERY facist nation, as were many of the other classical and pre-classical societies.

Doesn't the definition of "fascism" have something to do with a reaction to the threat or percieved threat of communism, though?

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-05-25 12:14am

weemadando wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:The USPS predates fascism. That the United States does a few of the same things that fascist governments do does not mean those things are inherently fascist.
The United States Postal Service? Predating facism? Are you out of your fucking mind? The United States wasn't even formed, the America's not even fucking DISCOVERED by Western Civilizations when Facism was created.

The United States Postal Service? Predating facism? Are you out of your fucking mind? The United States wasn't even formed, the America's not even fucking DISCOVERED by Western Civilizations when Facism was created.[/quote]
Facism was a very specific form of goverment invented by Mussolinni in the late 20's early 30's I am reasonably sure the the USA and the USPS were formed before this time.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-25 08:55pm

Durran Korr wrote:
And durran, regarldess of whether the method the political compass people use to determine your position, the idea of having a different axis from simple left/right is a good one. Left/Righ doesnt include the fact that you do have libertarians and authoritarians among each economic point of view.
Any political alignment test in which hardcore Marxist collectivists can claim the title "Leftist Libertarian" is fucked up. Libertarianism does not simply imply social liberty, economic liberty is essential as well in the body of thought.

well too bad that that is only the AMERICAN view of what a libertarian is. The european definition of libertarianism is completely different.

AND the entire point regardless of terminology etc, is to separate political groups. Like the American Republican party and the American Libertarians, who while both right in their economic views, have completely opposing views about civil liberties. Or Ghandi vs Stalin, who is farther left in the old model?

The two axis approach makes perfect sense, you take economic liberty vs control and social liberty vs control. The world is NOT a black and white one of left or right, it is one where there are many more alternatives. loook at me, i believe the buisness should be strongly regulated and controled to protect the society and environment from abuses in the name of a profit, while i also am the strongest believer in the complete freedom of the individual to do whatever the f*ck they want to, so long as they arent hurting anyone else physically.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-25 10:17pm

Facism's founding father was Benito Mussolini, or Il Duce. It was he who promulgated the pseudo-Socialistic form of national management and political organization later built upon by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. The system as an economic guildeline most recently experienced a loss in the 1994 capitulation of South Africa's Apartheid government but lives on - albiet sputteringly - in Israel. Less obvious overtones color the United States, European Union, and Russian Federation.

Facism could not have predated the 1848 Communist Manifesto. Previous forms of authoritarian government are notwithstanding. Both capitalism - which developed during the 1800s - and Socialism - in the form embraced and envisioned by Karl Marx during that same time period - are necessary requesites. While Facism borrows heavily on Merchantilist tendencies, it is nevertheless a modern creation for use in the parliamentary (and at one time pseudo-democratic) state. Rome's economic foundations - based on local subsistance, the barter system, and mass trade of foodstuffs - never fit that bill.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-26 12:04am

well too bad that that is only the AMERICAN view of what a libertarian is. The european definition of libertarianism is completely differen

Bullshit. Libertarianism is about individual liberty, first and foremost. There is no room for liberty in a collective.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-05-26 01:53am

Durran Korr wrote:
well too bad that that is only the AMERICAN view of what a libertarian is. The european definition of libertarianism is completely differen
Bullshit. Libertarianism is about individual liberty, first and foremost. There is no room for liberty in a collective.

Basic rundown of a political compass. on the x-axis: Economic left right

on the y axis: Social libertarian(notice the lower case)/authoritarian. A collective system would be far left on the X axis, far Up on the Y axis.

libertarian socialism would be far down(on a 10 point scale about an negative 6-negative

on the Y
and at about a (-)4-(-)5 on the X

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-05-26 01:54am

Note: I am a libertarian socialist.