WTF is a "free market socialist"?

[The_Orlonater]

A Keynesian.

 

[acptulsa]

But "collective/worker ownership of the means of production" is socialism. The only reason why government control/ownership is said to be socialism is because supposedly we're all collectively part of the government, and therefore anything the government controls, we control as well. But that's just a farce in my opinion. All governemnts have been oligarchies IMO, with maybe the exception of popular democracies--but those have hardly existed and they can be just as bad.

Well, I have only heard of socialism in terms of a system of government. I never ever heard anyone call United Airlines socialist, and I would have argued if I had. After all, the fact that their workers were in charge and sharing the profits (when they had any) did not mean that they didn't have to compete in a (not so free) market. Thus, something resembling captialism.

Now, if you want to call employee-owned corporations socialism, then I'll say I support socialism in an extremely limited way. As long as the worker-controlled corporation gets to play in a free market, I'm all for it.

Just don't expect me to call it socialism until the government gets some grubby fingers into the pie. Sorry. Guess I'm just too old school.

 

[Conza88]

A Keynesian.

Ha!

 

[Superdog]

Well, I have only heard of socialism in terms of a system of government. I never ever heard anyone call United Airlines socialist, and I would have argued if I had. After all, the fact that their workers were in charge and sharing the profits (when they had any) did not mean that they didn't have to compete in a (not so free) market. Thus, something resembling captialism.

Now, if you want to call employee-owned corporations socialism, then I'll say I support socialism in an extremely limited way. As long as the worker-controlled corporation gets to play in a free market, I'm all for it.

Just don't expect me to call it socialism until the government gets some grubby fingers into the pie. Sorry. Guess I'm just too old school.

I see I see. I actually encounter something similar on the Anarchist forums I go to.

People will make references to the evils of capitalism, how capitalism rapes countries, bankrupts economies and grinds people into prison and poverty. The term they're really searching for is our current system: statist capitalism, or perhaps Corporate Mercantilism. Any attempt to explain the distinction usually falls on deaf ears.

 

[escapinggreatly]

A Keynesian.

Ha, I think we have a winner for this thread.
__________________

The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes.​

 

[acptulsa]

I see I see. I actually encounter something similar on the Anarchist forums I go to.

People will make references to the evils of capitalism, how capitalism rapes countries, bankrupts economies and grinds people into prison and poverty. The term they're really searching for is our current system: statist capitalism, or perhaps Corporate Mercantilism. Any attempt to explain the distinction usually falls on deaf ears.

We're fast reaching the point where fascism will do to describe it. About the time they give tax money to the CEOs for champaigne, I don't know what else to call it. But I understand. When someone wants to sell a point in defiance of all conventional wisdom and/or reason, the first step is to start changing the meaning of terms. If, for example, you want to sell something repugnant then misidentify something that isn't repugnant with that name. For example, you could sell fruitcake as cookie bars. You could sell fascism as capitalism. Or, just to throw another example off the top of my head, you could sell socialism as employee ownership of companies, then sneak the totalitarian aspects in later. It's all very effective--for use against idiots.

 

[Superdog]

We're fast reaching the point where fascism will do to describe it. About the time they give tax money to the CEOs for champaigne, I don't know what else to call it.

Certainly, our current economy seems to be galloping towards fascism at a steady clip.

But I understand. When someone wants to sell a point in defiance of all conventional wisdom and/or reason, the first step is to start changing the meaning of terms. If, for example, you want to sell something repugnant then misidentify something that isn't repugnant with that name. For example, you could sell fruitcake as cookie bars. You could sell fascism as capitalism. Or, just to throw another example off the top of my head, you could sell socialism as employee ownership of companies, then sneak the totalitarian aspects in later. It's all very effective--for use against idiots.

I just feel a complusion to point out that that is a philosophy dating back to at least the 1800's.

 

[acptulsa]

I just feel a complusion to point out that that is a philosophy dating back to at least the 1800's.

It dates back one hell of a lot farther than that. What is a proprietorship without hirees but an employee-owned business? Come on now. The difference with Marx was that he actually did propose this as a system of government, if for no other reason than what else could realistically take all that property away and redistribute that wealth? And that's the difference between proprietorship and socialism.

 

[Aratus]

superdog, you is about to buy the CHINESE DEMOCRACY cd or download or something like that? like how does what you've said jell & jive with classic 1800s liberalism and mercantilism!?!! i agree, italian fascism sometimes can be molasses in january yet nazism is often quicker. this juan peron thingie and the politics of the 1970s...

 

[Aratus]

Certainly, our current economy seems to be galloping towards fascism at a steady clip.

again, are we into trusts or are we TR era?

 

[acptulsa]

superdog, you is about to buy the CHINESE DEMOCRACY cd or download or something like that? like how does what you've said jell & jive with classic 1800s liberalism and mercantilism!?!! i agree, italian fascism sometimes can be molasses in january yet nazism is often quicker. this juan peron thingie and the politics of the 1970s...

Way to pwn a Keynesian! You go, girl!

 

[werdd]

im a free market socialist randian objectivist keysnian economicist alan greenspanian clintonion barry goldwatery robert taftist andrewjacskson adolf hitlerist.

 

[acptulsa]

im a free market socialist randian objectivist keysnian economicist alan greenspanian clintonion barry goldwatery robert taftist andrewjacskson adolf hitlerist.

That would, even more than being a socialistic anarchist, be indicative of Multiple Personality Disorder. Seek professional help.

 

[Superdog]

Willful ignorance for the win! Woo-hoo!

 

[acptulsa]

Willful ignorance for the win! Woo-hoo!

It is what got this nation where it is today. That and the people who take full advantage of it...

 

[Superdog]

Way to pwn a Keynesian! You go, girl!

Keynesian? Where? I'll let you know if I see him.

It is what got this nation where it is today.

And you and your Ron Paul comrades seem to be gleefully swimming in it. (with a few exceptions of some very nice people)

 

[acptulsa]

And you and your Ron Paul comrades seem to be gleefully swimming in it. (with a few exceptions of some very nice people)

Niceness does not make socialism into something it isn't. Now, besides our disagreement about a certain definition, wherein doth my ignorance lie, O judge and jury? I am all agog to be educated by Your Eminence.

Look, changing the meanings of words is the first tool in the propagandists' tool chest when they're trying to shove poison down your throat. And their first defense is to attack the debater, not his argument. So, are you a propagandist or do you have some valid point to make?

 

[Superdog]

Niceness does not make socialism into something it isn't. Now, besides our disagreement about a certain definition, wherein doth my ignorance lie, O judge and jury? I am all agog to be educated by Your Eminence.

Look, changing the meanings of words is the first tool in the propagandists' tool chest when they're trying to shove poison down your throat. And their first defense is to attack the debater, not his argument. So, are you a propagandist or do you have some valid point to make?

I am trying to convince you that there is a long philosophical tradition of libertarian socialism, free market socialism and social anarchy, including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism and social ecology, that existed since before you were born. The fact that a concentrated effort has been made through government propaganda and schools to equate the word "socialism" with "evil baby eater who hates freedom" doesn't change the fact this is a legitimate historical tradition.
The definition of the word socialism that is most commonly used in America (not in other countries) is the State owning the means of production. That's Marx's definition. I'm not a Marxist. I don't use Marx's definition. All of the schools I just mentioned have been opposed to Marxism since the first word of it was written. No one is changing the definition of anything, unless you're accusing me of traveling back in time, becoming several people and writing a small library of political literature. You seem to be the one buying the standard propaganda that refuses to accept a range of political options beyond a narrow conception based only around property rights.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm asking you to accept that political traditions beyond your own, and various evils to rail against do, in fact, exist. All of the traditions I mentioned should be political allies to anyone opposed to un-checked state power.

 

[werdd]

I am trying to convince you that there is a long philosophical tradition of libertarian socialism, free market socialism and social anarchy, including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism and social ecology, that existed since before you were born. The fact that a concentrated effort has been made through government propaganda and schools to equate the word "socialism" with "evil baby eater who hates freedom" doesn't change the fact this is a legitimate historical tradition.
The definition of the word socialism that is most commonly used in America (not in other countries) is the State owning the means of production. That's Marx's definition. I'm not a Marxist. I don't use Marx's definition. All of the schools I just mentioned have been opposed to Marxism since the first word of it was written. No one is changing the definition of anything, unless you're accusing me of traveling back in time, becoming several people and writing a small library of political literature. You seem to be the one buying the standard propaganda that refuses to accept a range of political options beyond a narrow conception based only around property rights.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm asking you to accept that political traditions beyond your own, and various evils to rail against do, in fact, exist. All of the traditions I mentioned should be political allies to anyone opposed to un-checked state power.

Im glad you can readily redefine a word.


Socialism -

A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Marx's definition, imo he who knew best

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Socialism is the collective belief that goverment can better provide for the individual than the individual can possibly provide for itself.

It's the idea that instead of you going straight to the source, a better option would to let your goverment be the middle man in choosing all of the necessities of your life. School, food, television, the limited number of websites you can view based on your plan, etc.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone was a goverment worker on salary with forced lunch brunch and pre dinner breaks and only allowed to work 40 hours a week and we all make the same wage?

Socialism kills competition, eradicates self fulfillment, and eliminates an incentive to better yourself for your own good.

 

[acptulsa]

I am trying to convince you that there is a long philosophical tradition of libertarian socialism, free market socialism and social anarchy, including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism and social ecology, that existed since before you were born.

Mutualism is mutualism. The only one with 'socialism' in its proper name is so-called 'libertarian socialism' and all it wants to do is disguise the certainly present authority not as 'government' but as a 'trade union'-like authority. There is no difference I can see there but degree, and since such levels of control make it quite easy for this allegedly non-bureaucratic entity to draw more power unto itself, I doubt the difference of degree would last long if it were tried in the real world.

So, I fear that as a practical matter libertarian socialism is an oxymoron and could never exist as other than a pipe dream, at least for long. And I still dispute that the other things you mentioned are socialism at all.

Most people like to hold words to the best accepted definitions. As I say, the only person who would want to deemphasize the word 'poison' and substitute 'cherry-flavored cathartic' is the propagandist for a murderer.