Wikipedia's article on Libertarianism

[Symmetry]

I liked him better in Sideways.

what do you think about what he said concerning Liberty?

Honestly? It seemed trite.

I don't say that out of nastiness toward American values of Liberty in the period, I'm a big fan of Thomas Paine and one of my favourite poets is William Blake. I don't like seeing people using complicated and thoughtful debates over freedom and liberty as simplistic 90 second soundbites.

It seemed like an attempt to reduce history to a nugget, to make a genuine radical into a dude who just got angry and said what everyone else was thinking. A genuine thinker reduced to a cheap populist.

[Symmetry]

Sym you forgot the gun toting Disenfranchised Libertarian option

I probably just ran out of room. Libertarian just means you're on the internet and don't want to be called Dem or Repub on the most part.

[Phatscotty]

I liked him better in Sideways.

what do you think about what he said concerning Liberty?

Honestly? It seemed trite.

I don't say that out of nastiness toward American values of Liberty in the period, I'm a big fan of Thomas Paine and one of my favourite poets is William Blake. I don't like seeing people using complicated and thoughtful debates over freedom and liberty as simplistic 90 second soundbites.

It seemed like an attempt to reduce history to a nugget, to make a genuine radical into a dude who just got angry and said what everyone else was thinking. A genuine thinker reduced to a cheap populist.

okay....well...Thomas Paine is sitting in the front row in the video.... what the hell video did you watch? What the hell is going on with you Symm? Are you really just attacking every single thing I post???

[Symmetry]

I liked him better in Sideways.

what do you think about what he said concerning Liberty?

Honestly? It seemed trite.

I don't say that out of nastiness toward American values of Liberty in the period, I'm a big fan of Thomas Paine and one of my favourite poets is William Blake. I don't like seeing people using complicated and thoughtful debates over freedom and liberty as simplistic 90 second soundbites.

It seemed like an attempt to reduce history to a nugget, to make a genuine radical into a dude who just got angry and said what everyone else was thinking. A genuine thinker reduced to a cheap populist.

okay....well...Thomas Paine is sitting in the front row in the video.... what the hell video did you watch? What the hell is going on with you Symm? Are you really just attacking every single thing I post???

At least you have your sense of humour back. You should check out some of Blake's poetry if you get a chance. I think you might like it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sym you forgot the gun toting Disenfranchised Libertarian option

I probably just ran out of room. Libertarian just means you're on the internet and don't want to be called Dem or Repub on the most part.

Haha, there's no need to be cheeky.

(A) What does the following "libertarianism" represent?

Are the following different issues, that aren't quite related?


From a libertarian perspective, you can engage in any voluntary exchange with a consenting adult as long as you aren't initiating violence against someone or violating someone else's property rights. For example,

1. A marital contract can be made voluntarily between consenting adults--regardless of their sexual orientation
2. Since a human being owns himself, he/she holds the requisite property rights for making this contract legitimate.
3. A marital contract covers obligations from both parties and their property (namely, each other).
4. If no violence is initiated against anyone and
5. If no property rights are violated,
6. Then, marital status for gays (i.e. "gay marriage") is acceptable, thus should be implemented and legally recognized.

To call it "guy on internet that dislikes either American party" is an obtuse way of describing the above.

[Symmetry]

Possibly BBS, although I wasn't referring to you with that post (honest guv, I swear), but to people who say they're libertarian while holding a viewpoint that's tough to reconcile with a standard view, if any can be considered valid.

I generally think it's a fairly useless label.

I think you know that I agree with you on your points on gay marriage. I don't see the need to fit said view into a political framework of one of the styles of libertarianism.

[BigBallinStalin]

Possibly BBS, although I wasn't referring to you with that post (honest guv, I swear), but to people who say they're libertarian while holding a viewpoint that's tough to reconcile with a standard view, if any can be considered valid.

I generally think it's a fairly useless label.

I think you know that I agree with you on your points on gay marriage. I don't see the need to fit said view into a political framework of one of the styles of libertarianism.

I got'cha.

Re: underlined, the framework which I'm using to build that argument is "libertarianism," as I have learned it.

My libertarianism:
It's neither "left" nor "right," but more of political philosophy promoting individual liberty on the basis of voluntary exchange, property rights, and negative rights (e.g. negative right to life). One of its major axioms is the non-aggression principle, which basically means that you can't initiate violence against someone--unless they've violated your rights in some way (or are about to violate your rights. Thus, self-defense is justified). Someone stealing your stuff deserves to be rightfully punished, etc.


The following may explain why libertarians seem so inconsistent, or contradictory to other "libertarian" groups:
The libertarianism which I'm describing is very coherent, but if its proponents want to be logically consistent, they actually have to be against any State which derives its income in an involuntary manner. So, true libertarians would have to be anarcho-capitalists, market anarchists, etc.,--but with a natural rights angle. If the "true libertarian" dropped only the natural rights component, then they'd resemble more of a anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist.

Libertarians who fail to take this step tend to be called "minarchists," which describe your typical Libertarian of the Limited Government variety (e.g. Libertarian Party, US).


Left libertarianism seems contradictory. Libertarianism is about individual liberty. When an alleged propopent speaks of "collectivist values and goals" (which presumably are imposed on others), then there's not much liberty here, or anything resembling a free society--which doesn't make sense since libertarian is based on liberty. Of course, this brings in issues of dominance, control, voluntary, etc., and what exactly it means to be free--which in my opinion, these guys distort and fail to distinguish well enough (but that's probably another story).

[Symmetry]

Possibly BBS, although I wasn't referring to you with that post (honest guv, I swear), but to people who say they're libertarian while holding a viewpoint that's tough to reconcile with a standard view, if any can be considered valid.

I generally think it's a fairly useless label.

I think you know that I agree with you on your points on gay marriage. I don't see the need to fit said view into a political framework of one of the styles of libertarianism.

I got'cha.

Re: underlined, the framework which I'm using to build that argument is "libertarianism," as I have learned it.

My libertarianism:
It's neither "left" nor "right," but more of political philosophy promoting individual liberty on the basis of voluntary exchange, property rights, and negative rights (e.g. negative right to life). One of its major axioms is the non-aggression principle, which basically means that you can't initiate violence against someone--unless they've violated your rights in some way (or are about to violate your rights. Thus, self-defense is justified). Someone stealing your stuff deserves to be rightfully punished, etc.


The following may explain why libertarians seem so inconsistent, or contradictory to other "libertarian" groups:
The libertarianism which I'm describing is very coherent, but if its proponents want to be logically consistent, they actually have to be against any State which derives its income in an involuntary manner. So, true libertarians would have to be anarcho-capitalists, market anarchists, etc.,--but with a natural rights angle. If the "true libertarian" dropped only the natural rights component, then they'd resemble more of a anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist.

Libertarians who fail to take this step tend to be called "minarchists," which describe your typical Libertarian of the Limited Government variety (e.g. Libertarian Party, US).


Left libertarianism seems contradictory. Libertarianism is about individual liberty. When an alleged propopent speaks of "collectivist values and goals" (which presumably are imposed on others), then there's not much liberty here, or anything resembling a free society--which doesn't make sense since libertarian is based on liberty. Of course, this brings in issues of dominance, control, voluntary, etc., and what exactly it means to be free--which in my opinion, these guys distort and fail to distinguish well enough (but that's probably another story).

I think that's a fair explanation, but I hope you see how confusing it gets when the Tea Party, Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, Phatscotty, TGD, NightStrike, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, etc... lay claim to the title.

I lean toward your description, but it seems like a title that can be defined in too many ways to meaningfully describe much.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, as long as you know where I'm coming from (and a few libertarians), then that's all I can pretty much provide.

Any Rand is objectivism, which denies certain aspects of a free society (e.g. "Ayn Randism," it's proper label, has an "objective" value judgment on the aesthetics of architecture, clothing, etc.). It's absurd.

Tea Party is an incoherent political movement. Some of them may be libertarians, but definitely not all or perhaps most of them.

TGD seems to be a minarchist libertarian, but I never really asked him a set of questions.

As for the rest... <ugh> haha. Some of them may fit the description of Classical Liberal (e.g. Adam Smith and Co., the Limited Government people who allowed excpetions for the State in education and what not)>

________________________________________________________


I agree that the title has lost meaning because other people are using it but don't know what they're talking about, or they're doing this in a larger game of rhetoric, but it's probably as unintentional as "liberal" losing its original meaning of "classical liberal" and becoming "progressive/welfare liberal" today.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure Phatscotty, Night Strike, or Sarah Palin are Libertarian. Sarah Palin is a registered Republican. Presumably Phatscotty and Night Strike are registered Republicans as well based on their socially conservative views (which Libertarians do not uphold).

I have no idea what kind of Libertarian I am (BBS - proceed with your questions). I also don't hold to all Libertarian Party values.

I read the definition of minarchism and that seems to be about where I'm at (although I'm probably on the "closer to statist" side of minarchism than the strict definition).

[Phatscotty]

I'm not sure Phatscotty, Night Strike, or Sarah Palin are Libertarian. Sarah Palin is a registered Republican. Presumably Phatscotty and Night Strike are registered Republicans as well based on their socially conservative views (which Libertarians do not uphold).

I have no idea what kind of Libertarian I am (BBS - proceed with your questions). I also don't hold to all Libertarian Party values.

I read the definition of minarchism and that seems to be about where I'm at (although I'm probably on the "closer to statist" side of minarchism than the strict definition).

I am a registered Independent, and I have only voted for any Republican whatsoever once in my life, period. And I don't know why you continue to badger me about not being a Libertarian. I like Libertarianism very much, and I like Ron Paul more than anyone and that is by miles. I basically agree with everything he says. I have never actually called myself a Libertarian.

I officially restate I am a fiscally Conservative Independent. My social views or not as social as you think, when on most social views I just think the states should figure them out for themselves, and I don't get too caught up in taking a direct position on abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc.....I stick with the people should decide on a local level as much as they can.

[Phatscotty]

Hey, as long as you know where I'm coming from (and a few libertarians), then that's all I can pretty much provide.

Any Rand is objectivism, which denies certain aspects of a free society (e.g. "Ayn Randism," it's proper label, has an "objective" value judgment on the aesthetics of architecture, clothing, etc.). It's absurd.

Tea Party is an incoherent political movement. Some of them may be libertarians, but definitely not all or perhaps most of them.

TGD seems to be a minarchist libertarian, but I never really asked him a set of questions.

As for the rest... <ugh> haha. Some of them may fit the description of Classical Liberal (e.g. Adam Smith and Co., the Limited Government people who allowed excpetions for the State in education and what not)>

________________________________________________________


I agree that the title has lost meaning because other people are using it but don't know what they're talking about, or they're doing this in a larger game of rhetoric, but it's probably as unintentional as "liberal" losing its original meaning of "classical liberal" and becoming "progressive/welfare liberal" today.

The Tea Party is Libertarian leaning. Many Libertarian type people have been elected in the recent past on the TP platform, and many more will be elected soon. I am confident then a more accurate picture can actually be seen. The Republicans will be a totally different party, and then we all have to learn new definitions and comparisons to European Conservatives

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure Phatscotty, Night Strike, or Sarah Palin are Libertarian. Sarah Palin is a registered Republican. Presumably Phatscotty and Night Strike are registered Republicans as well based on their socially conservative views (which Libertarians do not uphold).

I have no idea what kind of Libertarian I am (BBS - proceed with your questions). I also don't hold to all Libertarian Party values.

I read the definition of minarchism and that seems to be about where I'm at (although I'm probably on the "closer to statist" side of minarchism than the strict definition).

Below is a spectrum, where I roughly lumped in economic freedom alongside government expenditures. Encompassing the variable, "government scope of authority," would take too long, so I "rule of thumb'd" it.



[No economic freedom]
|
|
________________________________
|Socialism (applied) [ex: Soviet Union] (two steps away from no economic freedom!)
|________________________________
|
|
|_____________________________________
|Fascism (applied) [Ex: Nazi Germany]
|---> (the most extreme form of Political Capitalism)
|_____________________________________
|
|
|
|_____________________________________
|Liberal Democracy (Applied over time).
|(This is where Classical Liberalism dies as Progressivism rises).
|------------------------------------------------------------
|
|---> United States 1910s to 2012: Applied Liberal Democracy which is a relatively mild form of Political Capitalism
|-----government expenditures: 40% to GDP (+9% with Federal Deficits)
|
|
|----> New Zealand 2008
|-----government expenditures: about 30% to GDP (p. 62)
|
|
|
|---> Hong Kong 2010 (de facto)
|-----government expenditures: 8% to GDP
|
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Classical Liberalism (laissez faire capitalism; Limited Government, as in Early Liberal Democracy)
|----------------------------------------------------
|---> United States 1770s and marginally less toward late 1800s
|-----government expenditures: roughly 5% to GDP
|
|
|
|
|_____________________________________________
|Minarchism
|___________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|_____________________________________________
|Anarcho-Capitalism/Market Anarchy
|(There are examples of anarchistic societies, but to call them "capitalist" would be stretching history. Currently, the literature encompasses competitive systems, which |the State traditionally monopolizes (e.g. legal systems).
|
|[Totes economic freedom]
|___________________________________________



I'd place TGD in the "Classical Liberal" camp.

What say you, TGD?

[thegreekdog]

I'd place TGD in the "Classical Liberal" camp.

What say you, TGD?

That looks right to me.

[Baron Von PWN]

BBS I am dissatisfied with your chart. The Soviet Union would be more appropriately called a Stalinist state.

Socialism does not entail the same level of economic control as seen in Stalinist states (Soviet Union, North Korea, ect), It would be closer to say the former Yugoslavia, or perhaps the Soviet Union under the new economic plan of the 1920s.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS I am dissatisfied with your chart. The Soviet Union would be more appropriately called a Stalinist state.

Socialism does not entail the same level of economic control as seen in Stalinist states (Soviet Union, North Korea, ect), It would be closer to say the former Yugoslavia, or perhaps the Soviet Union under the new economic plan of the 1920s.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Therefore, ur wrong!

HA HA hA!


_______________________________


I put "Applied" after it, to avoid this kind of argument. But I'll admit that you're right under the following circumstances:

10 = dickishness
9.8 = Stalinism
9.5 = Leninism/ 1920s Soviet Union (de juris). As the assholes Revolutionary shitmongers Vanguard asserted more control over people's economic decision-making, the SU became increasingly dickish. It was probably at a 5.0 during the civil war, but that's because the vanguard has yet to impose their goals--namely, socialism.

[Baron Von PWN]

BBS I am dissatisfied with your chart. The Soviet Union would be more appropriately called a Stalinist state.

Socialism does not entail the same level of economic control as seen in Stalinist states (Soviet Union, North Korea, ect), It would be closer to say the former Yugoslavia, or perhaps the Soviet Union under the new economic plan of the 1920s.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Therefore, ur wrong!

HA HA hA!


_______________________________


I put "Applied" after it, to avoid this kind of argument. But I'll admit that you're right under the following circumstances:

10 = dickishness
9.8 = Stalinism
9.5 = Leninism/ 1920s Soviet Union (de juris). As the assholes Revolutionary shitmongers Vanguard asserted more control over people's economic decision-making, the SU became increasingly dickish. It was probably at a 5.0 during the civil war, but that's because the vanguard has yet to impose their goals--namely, socialism.

actually this is incorrect. During the revolution they had something they called "war communism". This was a very brutal period of economic control, which was in theory more controlling than what Stalin brought in later. Though in practice they probably couldn't fully implement it. Regardless their intention was to implement total economic mobilization to win the civil war.

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

once they won the war they chilled out and introduced the New Economic Policy commonly referred to as "N.E.P". Essentially under this system government "limited" itself to controlling large industries, foreign trade, and banks. Most everything else was fair game. this lasted a bit under a decade from 1921-1928.

Following that we saw the rise of Stalin and Stalinism with the five year plans. Which saw rapid destruction of any formally private enterprises that remained as well as the collectivization of agriculture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Five-Year_Plan

My point was there have been "applied" socialist states which did not resort to the same sort of total control of the Soviet Union.

See this article on Yugoslavia under the reform section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ ... Yugoslavia

Or a number of democratic countries that had significant state management in the 50's-70's see the social democratic section here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism# ... s_in_power

Because of these significant differences I feel it is wrong to apply the title "socialism" to the Soviet Union. Which if we were to apply the tittle, to it would have to be under the understanding that it represents an extreme end of a spectrum of what could be considered socialist. As far as I'm concerned it's almost the equivalent of labelling Nazi Germany "capitalist" and saying they are an adequate description of capitalism.

[AndyDufresne]

Hm, I wonder where I would fall on this, if at all?!?


--Andy

[GreecePwns]

In the government vs. markets dictotmy, where does something like anarcho-communism fit?

[Dukasaur]

Hm, I wonder where I would fall on this, if at all?!?


--Andy

Try this:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/education-programs/teachers/classroom-resources/political-quiz.aspx

[BigBallinStalin]

In the government vs. markets dictotmy, where does something like anarcho-communism fit?

It depends on what you mean by "anarcho-communism."

Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism or libertarian communism[2][3][4][5]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, capitalism and private property (while retaining respect for personal property)[6], and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[7][8] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[9][10]

1) So, no markets, money, capitalist acts, and private property (except for owning your own self?).
2) Common ownership of the means of production; therefore, you do not have the economic freedom to own your own means of production. Maybe they'll concede to owning your own tools? Big deal.
3) No markets? So, no trading my own property (i.e. tools) for a price? No economic freedom in this realm either.
4) Capitalism, as in "private means of production," is abolished. (So much for the free society here).
5) Money... I don't think most an-coms know what money is or how it functions. So, I couldn't agree to someone else about using gold as a medium of exchange, which is what money is? (No econ. freedom here).

So, how are these prohibitions enforced? Not through the State, but through "direct democracy" and "voluntary" associations and local central planning councils based on a Marxist principle. Sounds like the State to me--especially if they prohibit the free competition of other voluntary associations (e.g. companies, corporations, privately provided security, law, etc.), which they would have to in order to maintain their prohibition on markets, money, capitalism, and private property. AnCom's core tenets are contradictory and don't leave much to be desired when their utopian idea hits reality.


It would be contradictory to call these guys "libertarian," for individual liberty and liberty itself wouldn't work with their agenda. As non-statist as they seem, they're pretty much pro-government to me--but they support a form of "voluntary" governance through which they would like to impose their values on others.

[BigBallinStalin]

actually this is incorrect. During the revolution they had something they called "war communism". This was a very brutal period of economic control, which was in theory more controlling than what Stalin brought in later. Though in practice they probably couldn't fully implement it. Regardless their intention was to implement total economic mobilization to win the civil war.

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

once they won the war they chilled out and introduced the New Economic Policy commonly referred to as "N.E.P". Essentially under this system government "limited" itself to controlling large industries, foreign trade, and banks. Most everything else was fair game. this lasted a bit under a decade from 1921-1928.

From reading James C Scott's Seeing like a State, I'd have to disagree with you on this. According to his research, (and Scott's a Marxist too), the Leninists beat down competing forms of governance in many villages and towns during the civil war, and had their vanguard or hand-picked groups be in charge. Not much economic freedom here, so perhaps in word, they "chilled out," but from what I've read, it was as chilly as a lit cigar being pushed into the eyeball.

Following that we saw the rise of Stalin and Stalinism with the five year plans. Which saw rapid destruction of any formally private enterprises that remained as well as the collectivization of agriculture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Five-Year_Plan

My point was there have been "applied" socialist states which did not resort to the same sort of total control of the Soviet Union.

See this article on Yugoslavia under the reform section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ ... Yugoslavia

That's... very interesting!

Or a number of democratic countries that had significant state management in the 50's-70's see the social democratic section here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism# ... s_in_power

BOOO!!!!!

Because of these significant differences I feel it is wrong to apply the title "socialism" to the Soviet Union. Which if we were to apply the tittle, to it would have to be under the understanding that it represents an extreme end of a spectrum of what could be considered socialist. As far as I'm concerned it's almost the equivalent of labelling Nazi Germany "capitalist" and saying they are an adequate description of capitalism.

Well, there's a word for the national socialists--a term they applied to themselves, and it's fascism. Technically, fascism involves private ownership of the means of production, but as far as prices and property rights go, then it's more like fascism instead of capitalism.

Socialism is strictly "public/state ownership of the means of production," and this has been espoused during its birth into political philosophy. Later, proponents of socialism wanted to dissociated that word with its practical outcomes (Soviet Union), so it became "market socialism," or politically became "social democracy," and a mild form of it is "social justice."


Those are all nice and all, but along this spectrum of governments and economic freedom, it depends on the degree of state-management over the affairs of individuals within the market.

(1) Extreme state-management would be socialism, as it was conceived and applied, and (2) fascism/national socialism follows right after.
(3) Milder forms would be "market socialism"/"social democracy"
(4) Middle ground would be the US, New Zealand, etc.
(5) In the past, there was classical liberalism, and the liberal democracy--before the expansion of the State. (Arguably, Hong Kong fits here).
(6) No state-management would be anarcho-capitalism.


To me this spectrum makes sense and is accurate. I'm not saying that Socialism--Applied (Soviet Union) = market socialism, or less strict forms of socialism, as it was conceived and applied early on. I'm just sayin' they're dissin' my economic freedom, bruh. And I ain't havin none of it!

[Baron Von PWN]

actually this is incorrect. During the revolution they had something they called "war communism". This was a very brutal period of economic control, which was in theory more controlling than what Stalin brought in later. Though in practice they probably couldn't fully implement it. Regardless their intention was to implement total economic mobilization to win the civil war.

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

once they won the war they chilled out and introduced the New Economic Policy commonly referred to as "N.E.P". Essentially under this system government "limited" itself to controlling large industries, foreign trade, and banks. Most everything else was fair game. this lasted a bit under a decade from 1921-1928.

From reading James C Scott's Seeing like a State, I'd have to disagree with you on this. According to his research, (and Scott's a Marxist too), the Leninists beat down competing forms of governance in many villages and towns during the civil war, and had their vanguard or hand-picked groups be in charge. Not much economic freedom here, so perhaps in word, they "chilled out," but from what I've read, it was as chilly as a lit cigar being pushed into the eyeball.

I'm not questioning this. The Bolsheviks were brutal during the civil war and pioneers of concentration camps(though these had no ethnic basis). They shot who knows how many people simply based on class background. However what I'm trying to get across is that the way they ran things was very differently during the period of the civil war, 1918-1921, and the period of peace afterwards, 1921-1928, and then even more differently after Stalin took over.

Under war communism groups of Bolsheviks could arbitrarily requisition just about anything for the revolutionary cause. Had no compunction about making workers work basically for free in exchange for food, and other goods. If they protested they could be shot.

Under NEP. Government ran the banks and large industry, but farmers were free to bring their goods to market and own and work their own land (they did have to pay a tax in goods to the state), people were free to start small businesses, they could hire employees and conduct business without any reporting to government other than taxes. It's true economic freedoms were limited but for the vast majority things were quite free.

With Stalin. Things went to a plan. All economic activities were brought under a central government plan, private businesses were gradually nationalised, including farms. Economic freedom was formally highly restricted. (though black markets flourished in order to fill in the gaps in the plan)

Following that we saw the rise of Stalin and Stalinism with the five year plans. Which saw rapid destruction of any formally private enterprises that remained as well as the collectivization of agriculture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Five-Year_Plan

My point was there have been "applied" socialist states which did not resort to the same sort of total control of the Soviet Union.

See this article on Yugoslavia under the reform section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ ... Yugoslavia

That's... very interesting!

Or a number of democratic countries that had significant state management in the 50's-70's see the social democratic section here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism# ... s_in_power

BOOO!!!!!

Because of these significant differences I feel it is wrong to apply the title "socialism" to the Soviet Union. Which if we were to apply the tittle, to it would have to be under the understanding that it represents an extreme end of a spectrum of what could be considered socialist. As far as I'm concerned it's almost the equivalent of labelling Nazi Germany "capitalist" and saying they are an adequate description of capitalism.

Well, there's a word for the national socialists--a term they applied to themselves, and it's fascism. Technically, fascism involves private ownership of the means of production, but as far as prices and property rights go, then it's more like fascism instead of capitalism.

Socialism is strictly "public/state ownership of the means of production," and this has been espoused during its birth into political philosophy. Later, proponents of socialism wanted to dissociated that word with its practical outcomes (Soviet Union), so it became "market socialism," or politically became "social democracy," and a mild form of it is "social justice."


Those are all nice and all, but along this spectrum of governments and economic freedom, it depends on the degree of state-management over the affairs of individuals within the market.

(1) Extreme state-management would be socialism, as it was conceived and applied, and (2) fascism/national socialism follows right after.
(3) Milder forms would be "market socialism"/"social democracy"
(4) Middle ground would be the US, New Zealand, etc.
(5) In the past, there was classical liberalism, and the liberal democracy--before the expansion of the State. (Arguably, Hong Kong fits here).
(6) No state-management would be anarcho-capitalism.


To me this spectrum makes sense and is accurate. I'm not saying that Socialism--Applied (Soviet Union) = market socialism, or less strict forms of socialism, as it was conceived and applied early on. I'm just sayin' they're dissin' my economic freedom, bruh. And I ain't havin none of it!

That's just the thing. Socialism does not by definition mean the means of production are owned by the state. Nor was it conceived as such. What it calls for is that the means of production be owned by the workers/peasants/people or held socially in some way. This doesn't necessarily mean state ownership or planning. It could be a market system in which all members of enterprises owned an equal stake in the enterprise, enterprises could then compete with each other.


Calling the state planning or Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist model "socialism" ignores the variety of ways in which socialism has been applied. A variety of which I provided to you.

Well, there's a word for the national socialists--a term they applied to themselves, and it's fascism. Technically, fascism involves private ownership of the means of production, but as far as prices and property rights go, then it's more like fascism instead of capitalism.

Exactly my point. The Soviets didn't presume a monopoly on the term Socialist, and had their own term for themselves "Marxist-Leninist" which in it's extreme form I would call "Stalinist". they acknowledged other forms of government as socialist, though of course they felt their way was the best way to be socialist.

There is no one "socialist" model just as there is no one "capitalist" model.

[BigBallinStalin]

actually this is incorrect. During the revolution they had something they called "war communism". This was a very brutal period of economic control, which was in theory more controlling than what Stalin brought in later. Though in practice they probably couldn't fully implement it. Regardless their intention was to implement total economic mobilization to win the civil war.

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

once they won the war they chilled out and introduced the New Economic Policy commonly referred to as "N.E.P". Essentially under this system government "limited" itself to controlling large industries, foreign trade, and banks. Most everything else was fair game. this lasted a bit under a decade from 1921-1928.

From reading James C Scott's Seeing like a State, I'd have to disagree with you on this. According to his research, (and Scott's a Marxist too), the Leninists beat down competing forms of governance in many villages and towns during the civil war, and had their vanguard or hand-picked groups be in charge. Not much economic freedom here, so perhaps in word, they "chilled out," but from what I've read, it was as chilly as a lit cigar being pushed into the eyeball.

I'm not questioning this. The Bolsheviks were brutal during the civil war and pioneers of concentration camps(though these had no ethnic basis). They shot who knows how many people simply based on class background. However what I'm trying to get across is that the way they ran things was very differently during the period of the civil war, 1918-1921, and the period of peace afterwards, 1921-1928, and then even more differently after Stalin took over.

Under war communism groups of Bolsheviks could arbitrarily requisition just about anything for the revolutionary cause. Had no compunction about making workers work basically for free in exchange for food, and other goods. If they protested they could be shot.

Under NEP. Government ran the banks and large industry, but farmers were free to bring their goods to market and own and work their own land (they did have to pay a tax in goods to the state), people were free to start small businesses, they could hire employees and conduct business without any reporting to government other than taxes. It's true economic freedoms were limited but for the vast majority things were quite free.

With Stalin. Things went to a plan. All economic activities were brought under a central government plan, private businesses were gradually nationalised, including farms. Economic freedom was formally highly restricted. (though black markets flourished in order to fill in the gaps in the plan)

Ahh, okay, and yeah, I agree that the 1921-1928 period was relatively more economically free compared to the life and times under good 'ol Uncle Joe.

But how free? I'm still hesitant to fully agree with you on this. But, it does remind me of "Communist" China pre-1951 and probably back to 1946/48. During that time, it sounded similar to how you're describing the Soviet Union 1921-1928.

...

After reading the wiki article for New Economic Policy, it sounds very similar to the political capitalism of China under Deng Xiaoping's control (circa 1980s, esp. mid-late 1980s).

If it wasn't for Stalin, the Russians could have had a decent country after the late 1920s. The "what if's" are incredible to think about.

Following that we saw the rise of Stalin and Stalinism with the five year plans. Which saw rapid destruction of any formally private enterprises that remained as well as the collectivization of agriculture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Five-Year_Plan

My point was there have been "applied" socialist states which did not resort to the same sort of total control of the Soviet Union.

See this article on Yugoslavia under the reform section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ ... Yugoslavia

That's... very interesting!

Or a number of democratic countries that had significant state management in the 50's-70's see the social democratic section here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism# ... s_in_power

BOOO!!!!!

Because of these significant differences I feel it is wrong to apply the title "socialism" to the Soviet Union. Which if we were to apply the tittle, to it would have to be under the understanding that it represents an extreme end of a spectrum of what could be considered socialist. As far as I'm concerned it's almost the equivalent of labelling Nazi Germany "capitalist" and saying they are an adequate description of capitalism.

Well, there's a word for the national socialists--a term they applied to themselves, and it's fascism. Technically, fascism involves private ownership of the means of production, but as far as prices and property rights go, then it's more like fascism instead of capitalism.

Socialism is strictly "public/state ownership of the means of production," and this has been espoused during its birth into political philosophy. Later, proponents of socialism wanted to dissociated that word with its practical outcomes (Soviet Union), so it became "market socialism," or politically became "social democracy," and a mild form of it is "social justice."


Those are all nice and all, but along this spectrum of governments and economic freedom, it depends on the degree of state-management over the affairs of individuals within the market.

(1) Extreme state-management would be socialism, as it was conceived and applied, and (2) fascism/national socialism follows right after.
(3) Milder forms would be "market socialism"/"social democracy"
(4) Middle ground would be the US, New Zealand, etc.
(5) In the past, there was classical liberalism, and the liberal democracy--before the expansion of the State. (Arguably, Hong Kong fits here).
(6) No state-management would be anarcho-capitalism.


To me this spectrum makes sense and is accurate. I'm not saying that Socialism--Applied (Soviet Union) = market socialism, or less strict forms of socialism, as it was conceived and applied early on. I'm just sayin' they're dissin' my economic freedom, bruh. And I ain't havin none of it!

That's just the thing. Socialism does not by definition mean the means of production are owned by the state. Nor was it conceived as such. What it calls for is that the means of production be owned by the workers/peasants/people or held socially in some way. This doesn't necessarily mean state ownership or planning. It could be a market system in which all members of enterprises owned an equal stake in the enterprise, enterprises could then compete with each other.


Calling the state planning or Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist model "socialism" ignores the variety of ways in which socialism has been applied. A variety of which I provided to you.

Who created and/or primarily expanded upon the concept of "socialism"?

Well, there's a word for the national socialists--a term they applied to themselves, and it's fascism. Technically, fascism involves private ownership of the means of production, but as far as prices and property rights go, then it's more like fascism instead of capitalism.

Exactly my point. The Soviets didn't presume a monopoly on the term Socialist, and had their own term for themselves "Marxist-Leninist" which in it's extreme form I would call "Stalinist". they acknowledged other forms of government as socialist, though of course they felt their way was the best way to be socialist.

There is no one "socialist" model just as there is no one "capitalist" model.

Either it's a flimsy word that doesn't describe much, or it's a word which described something very particular in the past, (but now has been expanded in a wider variety of meanings). Which do you think it is?

[Baron Von PWN]

Ahh, okay, and yeah, I agree that the 1921-1928 period was relatively more economically free compared to the life and times under good 'ol Uncle Joe.

But how free? I'm still hesitant to fully agree with you on this. But, it does remind me of "Communist" China pre-1951 and probably back to 1946/48. During that time, it sounded similar to how you're describing the Soviet Union 1921-1928.

...

After reading the wiki article for New Economic Policy, it sounds very similar to the political capitalism of China under Deng Xiaoping's control (circa 1980s, esp. mid-late 1980s).

If it wasn't for Stalin, the Russians could have had a decent country after the late 1920s. The "what if's" are incredible to think about.

They may have been annihilated by the Nazi's without him. Military production during that period was dismal. However the what if's are alluring.

Who created and/or primarily expanded upon the concept of "socialism"?


Either it's a flimsy word that doesn't describe much, or it's a word which described something very particular in the past, (but now has been expanded in a wider variety of meanings). Which do you think it is?

The word was created by Henri de Saint-Simon. as it was created it was an objection to individualist thinking on economics. It arose as a criticism of failures to address problems such as poverty, wealth divides, and social oppression.

So it came about as a somewhat wishy washy concept.

It was later expanded on by Marx and Bakunin. Who held opposing views on how to implement it. Marx favour the revolutionary and then statist method. While Bakunin was in favour of anarchistic collectivism.
Socialists eventually gelled behind Marx's thinking, but even then Marx was very vague as to how it should done.

With the Russian revolution Lenin came along and put into action his idea on how to carry out socialism, which was a state of the people, working towards communism. This became known as Marxist-Leninism.
Stalin came along and made a much stricter version of what Lenin had in mind that is a heavily centralised state which planned the economy. Stalinism.