News Left becoming increasingly isolated?

[russ_watters]

But that's bad rhetoric. You've fallen into using the "liberals are anti-capitalism" propaganda.

It's your rhetoric we're analyzing here. You made the statement we're discussing: I'm posting facts and definitions. Creating a straw-man (in quotes no less!) that I never said doesn't change any of it.

Social liberals seek to reduce the amount of capitalism by incorporating elements of socialism. That's a fact/definition. If you want to call that "anti-capitalist", that's on you. I never said it and won't pretend to know what you actually mean by it.

Liberals and conservatives are both capitalists. Socialism seeks to eliminate capitalism (no need to cherry pick, it's the fundamental goal of socialism).

Again, what you are doing here is defining "socialism" as a point on a spectrum, but capitalism as a range. That's disingenuous at best. If you want to be consistent, make them both points and say that liberals and conservatives are neither capitalists nor socialists. That would be more accurate than saying they were capitalists but not socialists.

Again, social liberals incorporate aspects of socialism into their philosophy. If socialism was just a point, then we wouldn't be able to say that.

FDR was trying to preserve capitalism amidst a world that had a anti-capitalist tone. He is considered by many to be the savior of capitalism.

Saving it by watering it down with socialism is still watering it down with socialism.

Both republicans and liberals are essentially centrists/moderates in the full spectrum. They both believe in capitalism, but they also both believe in some form of regulation.

C'mon, say it, don't dance around it: They both believe in capitalism, but they also both believe in some incorporation of socialism. Why are you so afraid to say it?

 

[PAllen]

It's your rhetoric we're analyzing here. You made the statement we're discussing: I'm posting facts and definitions. Creating a straw-man (in quotes no less!) that I never said doesn't change any of it.

Social liberals seek to reduce the amount of capitalism by incorporating elements of socialism. That's a fact/definition. If you want to call that "anti-capitalist", that's on you. I never said it and won't pretend to know what you actually mean by it. Again, what you are doing here is defining "socialism" as a point on a spectrum, but capitalism as a range. That's disingenuous at best. If you want to be consistent, make them both points and say that liberals and conservatives are neither capitalists nor socialists. That would be more accurate than saying they were capitalists but not socialists.

Again, social liberals incorporate aspects of socialism into their philosophy. If socialism was just a point, then we wouldn't be able to say that.
Saving it by watering it down with socialism is still watering it down with socialism.

C'mon, say it, don't dance around it: They both believe in capitalism, but they also both believe in some incorporation of socialism. Why are you so afraid to say it?

I believe there is a spectrum of Socialism that is mostly all outside mainstream politics in the USA. The defining feature of socialism as I learned it is government/public ownership of all (one end of the spectrum) or significant parts (the spectrum) of the productive economy. Sweden was half socialist, by this definition. Proposing to nationalize (rather than regulate) the energy industry would be an example of a meaningful step to Socialism. Thus, as I see it, essentially the whole spectrum of Socialism is fringe in the US. You may choose a different definition of the Socialism, but all people I know of who call themselves socialist accept this definition of its spectrum (not point).

 

[Pythagorean]

It's your rhetoric we're analyzing here. You made the statement we're discussing: I'm posting facts and definitions. Creating a straw-man (in quotes no less!) that I never said doesn't change any of it.

Social liberals seek to reduce the amount of capitalism by incorporating elements of socialism. That's a fact/definition. If you want to call that "anti-capitalist", that's on you. I never said it and won't pretend to know what you actually mean by it. Again, what you are doing here is defining "socialism" as a point on a spectrum, but capitalism as a range. That's disingenuous at best. If you want to be consistent, make them both points and say that liberals and conservatives are neither capitalists nor socialists. That would be more accurate than saying they were capitalists but not socialists.

Again, social liberals incorporate aspects of socialism into their philosophy. If socialism was just a point, then we wouldn't be able to say that.
Saving it by watering it down with socialism is still watering it down with socialism.

C'mon, say it, don't dance around it: They both believe in capitalism, but they also both believe in some incorporation of socialism. Why are you so afraid to say it?

"afraid to say it" ... more propaganda.

I'm not afraid to say it, it's just wrong. You are using an incorrect definition of liberalism when you compare it so socialism. Liberalism is technically independent of capitalism, but in the US, most liberals are capitalist liberals. The democratic party was the first of the two parties in the US. When Repuplicans came around, they were the liberals (they were pro-state, anti-seccession, they wanted to free the slaves, so they wanted social reform). These ideas were independent of capitalism. Capitalism wasn't even an issue!

Princeton definition:

"Liberalism: a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution."

or from wiki:

"Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as capitalism (either regulated or not), constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free press, free and fair elections, human rights and the free exercise of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]"

or you could read a book:

http://mises.org/liberal/isec5.asp

You're trying to pit liberalism as something trying to move away from capitalism, which is because you have this incorrect association of liberalism with socialism that the republican party has been painting for the last decade. Of course, the association explicitly stated would be fair, because many liberals do practice socialist ideals in the last decade, but it's simply because the two aren't mutually exclusive. It's not that they're necessarily inclusive of each other.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe there is a spectrum of Socialism that is mostly all outside mainstream politics in the USA. The defining feature of socialism as I learned it is government/public ownership of all (one end of the spectrum) or significant parts (the spectrum) of the productive economy. Sweden was half socialist, by this definition. Proposing to nationalize (rather than regulate) the energy industry would be an example of a meaningful step to Socialism. Thus, as I see it, essentially the whole spectrum of Socialism is fringe in the US. You may choose a different definition of the Socialism, but all people I know of who call themselves socialist accept this definition of its spectrum (not point).

That is a narrow definition that belies an important truth: "ownership" is about control (aka management) as much as it is about being able to count your money. Thus, actual ownership is not a requirement in order for a certain policy to be considered socialistic. The defining feature is control, which may or may not include ownership. Reference:

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1]...

...There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

So yes, a system can incorporate some elements of market economics (capitalism) and still be considered under the socialism "umbrella". And vice versa. What makes a policy socialistic is the surrendering of control and/or profit to the government.

You mentioned nationalization of utilities, such as power. Yes, that's a full-fledged, 100% socialistic policy. But in the US, they are merely heavily regulated, with laws that require that they serve everyone and with energy prices that are largely negotiated with the government, not set by the market (caveat: this has decreased somewhat in the past 20 years) and taxes and fees taken and earmarked for government programs. So if a utility is not allowed to set its prices and determine its place in the market, it is operating predominantly under a socialistic system. It certainly is not a full-fledged capitalistic system.

A single-payer/government healthcare system would be an example of a completely socialistic policy for one particular aspect of an economy.

 

[PAllen]

A single-payer/government healthcare system would be an example of a completely socialistic policy for one particular aspect of an economy.

This is an example of where I disagree with your definition (obviously, there is no real way to establish a correct/incorrect definition; I prefer to accept the definition of those calling themselves socialist.). Per my definition, single payer is just a government benefit (Canada). Single provider is socialist policy (UK). One takes over the healthcare industry (or a large part of it). The other only provides a benefit.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course, the association explicitly stated would be fair, because many liberals do practice socialist ideals in the last decade, but it's simply because the two aren't mutually exclusive. It's not that they're necessarily inclusive of each other.

#facepalm. I think you need to go back and reread this whole exchange. It was you who said they are mutually exclusive and my one and only argument was that they are not.

I had typed-out a whole point-by-point reply before reading your whole post, but I don't think it is really needed.

 

[russ_watters]

This is an example of where I disagree with your definition (obviously, there is no real way to establish a correct/incorrect definition; I prefer to accept the definition of those calling themselves socialist.). Per my definition, single payer is just a government benefit (Canada). Single provider is socialist policy (UK). One takes over the healthcare industry (or a large part of it). The other only provides a benefit.

We're using the same definition, you're just focusing on the wrong industry: the insurance industry is an industry too.

I am of the perception that certain industries are seen by many as not having a right to exist and if government takes them over, it is just forgotten that they ever were their own free industries. The insurance industry is a key example. Hundreds of billions of dollars flow through it and it employs hundreds of thousands of people, yet it is so easily dismissed.

 

[Pythagorean]

#facepalm. I think you need to go back and reread this whole exchange. It was you who said they are mutually exclusive and my one and only argument was that they are not.

I had typed-out a whole point-by-point reply before reading your whole post, but I don't think it is really needed.

No. There's two topics here that you're conflating. First, I said capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive: my original post that you responded to was that liberals are not socialists or communists, they are capitalists (a topic that's been brought up many times in response to the Republican rhetoric). This was in response to the original poster, who was trying to throw them in the same category that he called "left". Then you tried to confirm his belief that socialism and liberalism were practically the same thing.

A separate point that implicitly came out of the conversation is that regulation is not socialism. Regulation is a practice performed by both liberals and conservatives in a capitalist system. I and another poster have demonstrated this to you, but I'll demonstrate it one more time, through a famous socialist-turned-liberal, Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, who, when he was young and socialist said "we regard liberals as dangerous compromisers where I come from" but through a series of debates and inner-reflection cane to accept capitalism as the proper approach to economy in his old age, and thus became a liberal.Hitchen's Interview when he was a socialist:
zMTupcRri-c[/youtube] [b]Hitchens ...pedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Socialism

 

[PAllen]

We're using the same definition, you're just focusing on the wrong industry: the insurance industry is an industry too.

I am of the perception that certain industries are seen by many as not having a right to exist and if government takes them over, it is just forgotten that they ever were their own free industries. The insurance industry is a key example. Hundreds of billions of dollars flow through it and it employs hundreds of thousands of people, yet it is so easily dismissed.

That's a valid point, if we start from the current state of affairs in the US. If we go back to a time when medical care existed as private industry, but medical insurance did not, then providing a government benefit would not be socialist policy, per my definition. But I grant that single payer would be socialist in the US context; single provider would be even more socialist because it would entail two industries.

 

[russ_watters]

Then you tried to confirm his belief that socialism and liberalism were practically the same thing.

I.Have.Never.Said.Any.Such.Thing.

Quote or retract!

 

[russ_watters]

That's a valid point, if we start from the current state of affairs in the US. If we go back to a time when medical care existed as private industry, but medical insurance did not, then providing a government benefit would not be socialist policy, per my definition. But I grant that single payer would be socialist in the US context; single provider would be even more socialist because it would entail two industries.

Either I'm misreading this or it doesn't make sense. There's no time limit or how-did-we-get-here criteria on socialism, it is simply government ownership/control. Even if government creates the industry itself, it is still socialistic for the government to be owning/controlling it if government control prevents private industry from doing the same thing. Your characterization would seem to lead to logical problems such as:

1. The same government policy can be socialistic in one country and not socialistic in another depending on what existed before the policy.
2. If government invents an industry, then de-nationalizes it, we are left with nothing to call that.
3. Extension: A policy may be socialistic at the instant of inception, but once the government has control of an industry it is no longer socialistic because the government isn't in the process of actively seizing control.

 

[PAllen]

Either I'm misreading this or it doesn't make sense. There's no time limit or how-did-we-get-here criteria on socialism, it is simply government ownership/control. Even if government creates the industry itself, it is still socialistic for the government to be owning/controlling it if government control prevents private industry from doing the same thing. Your characterization would seem to lead to logical problems such as:

1. The same government policy can be socialistic in one country and not socialistic in another depending on what existed before the policy.
2. If government invents an industry, then de-nationalizes it, we are left with nothing to call that.
3. Extension: A policy may be socialistic at the instant of inception, but once the government has control of an industry it is no longer socialistic because the government isn't in the process of actively seizing control.

Ok, I can see some difficulty. But then you are lead to the idea that all government activity is socialist, if so much as one salary or economic transaction is involved. I guess that is where you would want to draw the line.

 

[SixNein]

Either I'm misreading this or it doesn't make sense. There's no time limit or how-did-we-get-here criteria on socialism, it is simply government ownership/control. Even if government creates the industry itself, it is still socialistic for the government to be owning/controlling it if government control prevents private industry from doing the same thing. Your characterization would seem to lead to logical problems such as:

1. The same government policy can be socialistic in one country and not socialistic in another depending on what existed before the policy.
2. If government invents an industry, then de-nationalizes it, we are left with nothing to call that.
3. Extension: A policy may be socialistic at the instant of inception, but once the government has control of an industry it is no longer socialistic because the government isn't in the process of actively seizing control.

Socialism essentially has no meaning in the USA. And in general, it is used in a fallacious argument.

The majority of libertarians, conservatives, moderates, and liberals desire a mixed economy. Mixed being that there exists a government that participates in some way in the market. For example, most argue that we need a standing military. A standing military is an act of the government participating in the market. The government buys guns, tanks, etc all from the private market and taxes its citizens and firms to cover the costs. We all generally agree that the government should provide services like traffic lights and the highway system. The key difference between liberals and conservatives is the disagreement over how the mixed economy should look. Finally, mixed economies are essentially the defacto standard in the world today.