Duality of Socialism

2005-11-21 14:08:00

Larry:

Social programs" and "socialism" are not equivalent.

Correct, they are not exactly equivalent, just like a wheel and a car are not exactly the same, but all socialism has social programs.

Larry:

No, I don't think you could define the programs of churches as being "socialistic" (unless you are referring to Acts in the New Testament, and even that is debatable). Most "social programs" in churches would be better termed "charity," or "charitable programs" than "socialism."

The word "charity" is way too encompassing to use here. A social program can be charitable, but so can a non social one. I sold advertising in the past for charities where little or no socialization was involved.

But then you can have a charity where all ingredients are shared in a socialized way.

The Mormon Church had a very socialistic program they called The United Order."

If a church has a drive to make money and everyone cooperates and works as equals then you have social activity, an ingredient of socialism - a socialistic enterprise. This is free socialism because all participation is voluntary.

Larry:

It's all a matter of definition really.

It is not so much a difference in definition as a _lack_ of real definition on your part. It is a lack of you defining your terms.

I did give a precise definition, which was: Free Socialism: The free will cooperation of individuals to create and maintain an organization wherein assets are shared for the benefit of all.

By this standard a corporation that is employee owned is socialistic as well as the Molecular Business model I present.

That which you call socialism I call "forced socialism."

I think I've been pretty clear here.

Quoting JJ

I think it is more precise to call all type of social programs a type of socialism and differentiate by calling one forced socialism and the other free socialism.

Larry:

I guess then we will have to agree to disagree on this.

There is no disagreement possible here. That IS my thinking. To disagree with that statement you would have to say I do not think this.

To say you disagree with my definition is to say you do not wish to understand what I am trying to say.

For instance: If you give an odd definition such as "socialism is picking apples," here is what I would do. I would listen to what you say and every time you use the word I would visualize picking apples so I could understand what you were trying to say. If you made sense I wouldn't disagree with you but use your definition when replying.

After an exchange I would attempt to reach a more appropriate definition of the word that we can both use. The main goal would be to communicate accurately which is much more important than whose definition is right.

Larry:

You are loosely equating "social programs" with "socialism" and that is nonsense in my opinion.

Why is it nonsense when all socialism has social programs? Both words come from the same source.

We are nit-picking about definition here rather than discussing principles and seeing the big picture.

Larry:

"Socialism" is a political and economic theory and not just a euphemism for "social programs."

I didn't say it was. I think you are giving a very narrow definition of socialism and that the word can have many applications, depending of course on how broad one defines his terms.

The word means what a person or group defines it to mean. When the person defines his meaning then all can discuss intelligently. Why do you insist on such a narrow definition? Or why must I use the word in my own writings the way you define it?

Larry quoting the Random House Definition:

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital and land by the community as a whole."

Notice the word "control" there? That means "force" - control is enforced by force and private ownership is not allowed - the _freedom_ of individual ownership is not allowed. That _is_ "forced socialism," and the word "forced" is redundant.

Let's go to another dictionary for another definition. My Websters unabridged dictionary gives this one and only definition: "A theory of social reform, the main feature of which is to secure the reconstruction of society, with a more equal division of property and the fruits of labor, through common ownership."

This definition could be applied to either free or forced socialism.

There are controls where there is maximum freedom. Maximum freedom can only exist where there is control. Every business has control over employees, every church and organization has rules to control things. We control the burglar through law so he does not have the freedom to steal from us.

Notice I use the phrase "maximum freedom" rather than just "freedom." There is no such thing in this world as total freedom to do any whimsical thing you want because this would lead to minimum freedom of the whole.

The fact that the word "control" is in that definition does not tell us that all socialism is forced.

Free socialism (as I define it) would have to have controls, laws and rules, but if the members do not like it they can work to change the rules, or leave and create something better.

The problem with forced socialism is that we cannot leave and participate in something that seems better to us.

Larry:

There is a big difference between that idea and where employees each have a partial ownership in an enterprise which is voluntary (which is more accurately described as "free enterprise").

Again we get down to definitions. There can be free enterprise in a socialistic system (as I would define it). I can see socialism working with no power of the state involved, but the problem it there is no way to kick them out at present.

Larry:

It (my definition of socialism) is "serious" in the sense that you are not clearly communicating what it is that you advocate. You will alienate a large number of Libertarians, and people influenced by Libertarian thought from listening to what you advocate simply by a very poor choice of words.

I may alienate those who do not absorbed what I am saying and how I am defining my terms but I will also reach out to many who are hypnotized with the idea that forced socialism is a good thing. Keep in mind that less than 1% of the country are Libertarians and the vast majority believe in a degree of forced socialism. By differentiating between forced socialism and free socialism we can create a much greater avenue of communication to the deceived masses. Even the believers in standard socialism think they support freedom. By differentiating between free and forced socialism we are leading them to ask themselves: "Have I really accepted a forced socialism? What does he mean by free socialism?"

This approach will gain far more than it will lose in my opinion.

Larry:

For most part I would have to call your political and economic ideas as "pragmatic Libertarianism." I don't think that you "seriously" disagree with Libertarianism in a practical (or pragmatic) sense, but I think you are making a "serious" mistake in terminology to describe what you advocate as any form of "socialism." :)

Yes, I think you understand my basic views, but don't like my definition because it may turn some people off. But I am looking at the whole here. I think I will ultimately turn many more people on than off.

Dan:

That said, I don't think JJ should retract/recant or change his statement/position just to satisfy/appease/not-repel those of us (all/most) that are afflicted by this disease (mentally controlled by emotional triggers), either. Sometimes a hard knock is needed to jar loose a person's preconceptions, perceptions or illusions.

Yes, I am trying to create a hard knock on both sides. To clarify my thinking let me add this.

One of the problems with our society is our Orwellian double speak and misuse of words. The ironical thing is that the most anti-Orwellian people are often caught in an Orwellian use of words.

Conservative really means liberal and liberal really means conservative. To conserve the environment is liberal. Socialism is not social and to be social has nothing to do with socialism. In fact socialism is anti-social. Socialism is state control which is really anti-social.

Communism is totalitarianism and not socialism but totalitarianism is not communism.

We could go on and on with this confusing double speak that exists among both conservatives and liberals.

It would be a great aid in communication, leading to unity, to merely have a consistent use and definition of words.

Let us look at the word "socialism" again. It is derived from the same root as the words "social, society, sociable, socialize." Can all these be good words except one - socialism?

All words presenting ideas have a duality behind them and socialism is no exception. When we only allow half the duality in a definition then we are only seeing half the picture. When we see only half the picture communication breaks down and wrong application ensues.

One of the reasons that socialism is so out of control is that only half of the duality of socialism has been presented. This gives the world no way to choose within their minds the positive side of socialism.

Whether offense is created or not the positive side of socialism must be presented so people can see to choose the way of maximum freedom.

As it is only a very small percentage will choose the libertarian way because it does not reach out to their social desires.

Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)