Why socialism is so popular?

[OCWife]

...

Sigh. The differences between Marx and current social democrats are irrelevant to my argument, because my argument does not discuss the attributes in which they differ. My argument addresses the attribute in which they share. However, you cannot even understand my argument because you cannot get past the way I use the word "socialism."

Just because I do not criticize the way they differ does not mean I don't acknowledge that they differ. It's just that their differences are irrelevant to my argument.

It really doesn't matter what I call it, the concepts are independent from the term. I don't somehow "not learn" or become stupider because of the way I use terms, because as long as the concepts behind them are understood, the terms are just language, ways of communication.

One thing that is very telling:

If I would just denote both of them as socialism, then I would not learn very much.

No, unless you are stupid, because what you denote them by does not affect the concepts behind them. That is why I say even animals who don't use human language understand some of the same concepts we understand. Only a stupid person's ability to learn is limited by language and terminology.

Furthermore, you claim that I don't specify causation, but no, you just don't recognize what I said is causation. You refuse to acknowledge my answers doesn't mean the answers didn't exist.

Because if we just start denoting all things by their most general traits, unable to move to different levels of abstraction, then scholarship is dead.

It is because of the ability to move to different levels of abstraction that allows the denotation of things based on more general traits. Do you say that people who acknowledge abstracted/generalized descriptions are stuck on certain levels of abstraction? That would defeat the purpose of abstraction/generalization itself.

Guess what, you used the word "thing" in your statement. That's one of the most abstract and general terms there is! It is a denotation based on the most general trait, the trait being "that which exists." Are you saying that you are stuck on certain levels of abstraction because you use the word "thing" that is a very general word encompassing anything in existence? If so, you are attacking yourself.

The reason my arguments are not falsifiable is because they are impeccable, because I am a genius beyond your comprehension, not because I word them in an "unfalsifiable way" because words themselves do not change the concepts and relations behind them.

[Claudius Gothicus]

My criticism is not about the difference in means. My criticism is about the concept that you define as "Social Ownership of the means of production". I am not criticizing the attributes in where they differ, I criticize what they have in common, a point which Diamat also apparently fails to grasp.

Have in common? what you seem to be failing to grasp is that there's only one form of ''Social Ownership of the means of production'', in practice there's only socialism in State Owned Systems or decentralized cooperatives.

Wherever there's a maintenance of private property, an autonomous form of property where the direction of those goods is solely or utimately ordered by the individuals who are exclusively connected to them, there's no socialism. Ergo a modern ''Social Democracy'', a ''Social-Democratic'' principle of Bernstein's kind is a none-socialist principle; it's nothing more than a Capitalist form where the redistribution of wealth, property and access is much more extented.

The practice of Socialism in the gradualist form is not socialism at all, just like the practice of Classical Liberalism by anti-institutional methods is not liberal at all.

[OCWife]

Have in common?

Uh... you're the one who said they had that goal in common. I merely reworded my statement based on what you said (using your language) to make it easier for you to understand. If you retract your statement then I might reword my statement again for you. Although I might not because I'm getting tired of rewording my statements just because you people nitpick my terminology, like you are allergic to certain words or something. Nevertheless, the concepts I refer to in my statements remain the same regardless of the words I choose to represent them with. Because, really, if I had my way, I will just call it all "stupidism." The fact that I specifically use your language and not just call it all "stupidism" is for your benefit.

By the way, to remind you that the language I used was created by you, not me:

Marx-Lenin wanted the Social Ownership of the means of production. The SPD wanted the Social Ownership of the means of production.

I bolded the language that I adopted from you. Do you prefer me to use the word "stupidism" instead?

[Nikitn]

How the hell do you lose skilled labour during recessions without welfare? Are you imagining the alternatives are starvation?

What do you think would happen if welfare was abolished b4 a recession hit?

Hint:

Not necessarily starvation, but you'd see a marked increase in emigration & hobos. Due to that, you would see less demand for goods (because less people spend money) which would lead to deflation and encourage saving and even less spending and more hobos & emigration and so on. Hmm, I believe something like that happened during the Great Depression.

In addition, people would change their profession to whatever is hiring.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Uh... you're the one who said they had that goal in common. I merely reworded my statement based on what you said (using your language) to make it easier for you to understand. If you retract your statement then I might reword my statement again for you. Although I might not because I'm getting tired of rewording my statements just because you people nitpick my terminology, like you are allergic to certain words or something. Nevertheless, the concepts I refer to in my statements remain the same regardless of the words I choose to represent them with. Because, really, if I had my way, I will just call it all "stupidism." The fact that I specifically use your language and not just call it all "stupidism" is for your benefit.

By the way, to remind you that the language I used was created by you, not me:
I bolded the language that I adopted from you. Do you prefer me to use the word "stupidism" instead?

I'm going to ignore the fact that you called me stupid and restate what I believed to be pretty clear.

That Social-Democrats made quite a few turns in their methodology to attain the primitive objective, the famous ''Socialization of Proeperty'' is absolutely relevant to understanding why in practice it stopped being Socialist and simply became a more ''redistributory form'' of Liberalism. While on the other hand, revolutionary parties like the KPD of Germany ended up replacing them on the ''real socialism'' spectrum of ideologies.

Why? because the KPD method was clearer and already proved to be revolutionary in the sense of, at least formally, effectively suppresing private property a process of which the USSR was, back in the 30's and 20's, a fact.

If means and ends determine an ideological position then a radical modification of means might end up, in practice, suppressing or radically modifying the original ends. With post-hoc reinterpretations of what does socialization mean included, like in the Social-Democrats case.

Maintaining a revolutionary outlook of ''the means to socialism'' has, in practice, proved to be far more effective(to attaining the suppression of Private Property) than gradualism, which in the end, reinterpreted it's own definition of suppressing private property to keep the ''social'' in social-democracy. As a result when one says Socialism, as a general concept, one has to referr to the former and not the latter.

[Squiggle]

What do you think would happen if welfare was abolished b4 a recession hit?

Voluntary aid would increase.

[Gatsby]

Voluntary aid would increase.

Ah yes people were just flocking to the donation stations in the 19th century.

You have too much faith in humanity.

[OCWife]

I'm going to ignore the fact that you called me stupid and restate what I believed to be pretty clear.

I didn't say you're stupid, I said "Social Ownership of the means of production"is stupid. Unless you are somehow the "Social Ownership of the means of production," in which case you are not an organism but an idea. Ideas aren't capable of acting on their own and posting on internet forums, because ideas are not physical entities, so I will assume you are not an idea. However, if you insist on being an idea, then you don't exist in physical form, which would mean all your posts here are my hallucinations.

As a result when one says Socialism, as a general concept, one has to referr to the former and not the latter.

When I say socialism, or whatever arrangement of alphabets, I can give it whatever definition I want. Because words have no meaning beyond what the user gives them. Beyond the intent of the user, they are just scribbles, assortments of atoms in your screen or on paper.

Language is very arbitrary. In particular, romanized languages are the most arbitrary of them all. At least in picture-based languages, such as Chinese or Hieroglyphics, the words actually have a physical-world concrete representation behind them. Our entire exchange goes to show why romanized languages are inferior. Particularly, languages such as English that are bastardizations of other romanized languages are even more inferior because they are even further removed from physical-world concrete representation.

I have already stopped using the word "socialism" many posts ago. I even adopted the language that you wrote for your sake. Yet, you are still stuck on debating the usage of the word "socialism." You cannot get past the semantic level of argument.

[Squiggle]

Ah yes people were just flocking to the donation stations in the 19th century.

They were...yes...

You have too much faith in humanity.

Uhh you realize we both are putting faith in humanity? I'm putting faith in hundreds of millions of people and they're own natural kindness, and your putting faith in a few hundred power mad bureaucrats running a competent corruption free system [which can only be sustained through the naivete and natural kindness of the hundreds of millions].

[justicar5]

They were...yes...
Uhh you realize we both are putting faith in humanity? I'm putting faith in hundreds of millions of people and they're own natural kindness, and your putting faith in a few hundred power mad bureaucrats running a competent corruption free system [which can only be sustained through the naivete and natural kindness of the hundreds of millions].

No, they weren't mass starvation among the working poor was endemic, child prostitution was endemic as a survival tactic, people worked 90 odd hours a week to not earn enough to actually eat. If it was so great, you live that way, sell you children to a paedophile, eat 800 calories a day, and work 16 hours a day, every day, drink contaminated water and die in your mid twenties. That was life under glorious Christian charity.

[Squiggle]

No, they weren't mass starvation among the working poor was endemic, child prostitution was endemic as a survival tactic, people worked 90 odd hours a week to not earn enough to actually eat.

They never worked 90, and it was a poor time period. That has nothing to do with altruistic behaviour or lackthereof.

[justicar5]

They never worked 90, and it was a poor time period. That has nothing to do with altruistic behaviour or lackthereof.

ok, 78 was more accurate, 6*12 and 1*6. It was not a poor period by any stretch, the richest people that have ever lived made their fortunes then (seriously the Rothschild's, the Rockefeller's the Cadbury's all made their fortunes then wether in industry or banking off the backs of starving working poor, and trickle down worked as well as it always does, rich got richer than emperors, poor starved.

You just need to look at the mansions of the time to see where all the money was being poured.

[Squiggle]

ok, 78 was more accurate, 6*12 and 1*6. It was not a poor period by any stretch, the richest people that have ever lived made their fortunes then (seriously the Rothschild's, the Rockefeller's the Cadbury's all made their fortunes then wether in industry or banking off the backs of starving working poor, and trickle down worked as well as it always does, rich got richer than emperors, poor starved.

Are you kidding me? The living standards of the rich then would be considered poor by todays standards. That people were rich with huge percentages of the total economy is entirely immaterial to the societies actual wealth and technological progression. The 1800's was a vast improvement on all levels to the periods before it, but yes it was brutal. It still was an extremely altruistic time, virtually every large charity was formed in the 1800's.

You just need to look at the mansions of the time to see where all the money was being poured.

You know absolutely nothing if you think the amount of wealth used on luxury items by the rich exceeded anything but the most pathetically insignificant fraction of a percent.

[Gatsby]

Are you kidding me? The living standards of the rich then would be considered poor by todays standards. That people were rich with huge percentages of the total economy is entirely immaterial to the societies actual wealth and technological progression. The 1800's was a vast improvement on all levels to the periods before it, but yes it was brutal. It still was an extremely altruistic time, virtually every large charity was formed in the 1800's.
You know absolutely nothing if you think the amount of wealth used on luxury items by the rich exceeded anything but the most pathetically insignificant fraction of a percent.

So you believe that without the introduction of social democracy into the political mainstream, the capitalist class would have started to increase their worker's wages above the lowest figure possible? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

[Squiggle]

So you believe that without the introduction of social democracy into the political mainstream, the capitalist class would have started to increase their worker's wages

I know it-- because wages were demonstrably going up, hours worked were going down. Everywhere, regardless of legislation passed.

above the lowest figure possible? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

No, not out of goodness, but out of greed. Thats the beauty of capitalism, greed forces you to work for the sake of others, to cooperate with everyone and accept small defeats for the larger end.

Socialism on the other hand... "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else."

[Claudius Gothicus]

I know it-- because wages were demonstrably going up, hours worked were going down. Everywhere, regardless of legislation passed. No, not out of goodness, but out of greed. Thats the beauty of capitalism, greed forces you to work for the sake of others, to cooperate with everyone and accept small defeats for the larger end.

Ohh man you have to back that up so badly right now:

I want these facts and I'll order them on a decreasing level of importance so that you can easily google them:

• Hours per week worked from the 1840's to the 1910's in severely industrialized contries, including the USA, Germany and England.

• Real Salaries from the 1840's to the 1910's in severely industrialized countries including those mentioned above.

• The legally enforced existence or not of Collective Bargain in all of the included and the legal status of Unions(around the 1840's to the 1910's), along with raw numbers of unionized and non-unionized workers per countries and branch. In order to conclusively decree if any of the above happened with or without union fights.

• The number of seats held and the specific reforms passed by governments that expanded suffrage, labor and social rights would be nice to. IN that era of course, 1840's to 1910's.

[Squiggle]

Ohh man you have to back that up so badly right now:

I want these facts and I'll order them on a decreasing level of importance so that you can easily google them:

• Hours per week worked from the 1840's to the 1910's in severely industrialized contries, including the USA, Germany and England.

• Real Salaries from the 1840's to the 1910's in severely industrialized countries including those mentioned above.

• The legally enforced existence or not of Collective Bargain in all of the included and the legal status of Unions(around the 1840's to the 1910's), along with raw numbers of unionized and non-unionized workers per countries and branch. In order to conclusively decree if any of the above happened with or without union fights.

• The number of seats held and the specific reforms passed by governments that expanded suffrage, labor and social rights would be nice to. IN that era of course, 1840's to 1910's.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...14498383900189

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/w....work.hours.us

I dont have to link for a variety of industralized countries, all I have to show is the growth of income and lowering of hours in one. Britain isnt magic, it doesnt rain gum drops and kisses. If it happened in Britain it happened everywhere else that experienced the industrial revolution. Article one demonstrates wage increases in Britain [doubling in a decade more than once], second link shows a gradual decrease in American labour. Union legality and work hours passed a google away: hint, nothing happened really until the late 1870's in britain and far later in America. Hours were going down, wages up, literally 50 years before that.

edit: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publicatio...tmortality.pdf infant mortality was dropping across the continent.

[Claudius Gothicus]

And how can you prove said changes are not related to legislation and unionizing and are solely to blame on technological developments? Ohh yeah, because ''nothing was happening'' before the 1870's... well, that's highly debatable: the decrease of child mortality has little to do with an actual improvement on the Working Classes overall health, it's a simple product of food prices going down.

Without the numbers on unionizing and reforms you could very well fall within a trap of false-causation: being that an increase of wages(with a subsecuent increase in prices), or a decrease on child mortality are not real indicators of improving conditions.

[Squiggle]

And how can you prove said changes are not related to legislation and unionizing and are solely to blame on technological developments?

The lack of their existence.

Ohh yeah, because ''nothing was happening'' before the 1870's... well, that's highly debatable:

Its not highly debatable, your just historically ignorant. Up until the 1890's the Government was consistently losing power across Britain, you can look up the damn laws passed and read them yourself in about thirty seconds if you bother to google.

the decrease of child mortality has little to do with an actual improvement on the Working Classes overall health, it's a simple product of food prices going down.

Weird how no one ever has thought that infant mortality is directly and solely tied to food.

[justicar5]

Are you kidding me? The living standards of the rich then would be considered poor by todays standards. That people were rich with huge percentages of the total economy is entirely immaterial to the societies actual wealth and technological progression. The 1800's was a vast improvement on all levels to the periods before it, but yes it was brutal. It still was an extremely altruistic time, virtually every large charity was formed in the 1800's.
You know absolutely nothing if you think the amount of wealth used on luxury items by the rich exceeded anything but the most pathetically insignificant fraction of a percent.

The families I reffered to had a decent percentage of GDP.. it was laisse fairre working as intended, making a few mega rich, as rich as the government, or near to it, while everyone else starved. There where charities yes, but they got less money than the aforementioned mansions. Oh and most of the charities where religious indoctrination groups in disguise, (Salvation Army, we will stop you dying,m if you convert to our exact flavour of faith, and do exactly what we say, and give up contact with everyone who isn't in the group...real nice. Much changed now, but they started as a cult, there was a reason people chased them away rather than take there help.)