Socialism, liberalism, conservatism.. is whatever you're told it is

[Wildcat]

Yes and "George Bush wasn't a true Conservative" either

 

That's one of the most in depth and most pretentious no true Scotsmen I've seen for quite a while, congratulations.

 

Just as with Bush and American conservatism the only definitions of 'socialism' which completely exclude the USSR, CCCP and so forth are those made up after the fact specifically to try and exclude politically embarrassing past champions of the ideology in question.

 

Oh and where do you get this bizarre notion the notion is maintained in academia that state socialism is the only form of socialism? Even in A-level sociology or history you learn about wide varieties of socialism take the step up to University and there's a bewildering variety of variants of socialism (along with pretty much every other ideology you care to mention) being vigorously discussed all the time both in seminars, journals and books and on campus.

 

In what way is the Op an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy? As I read it Epiphany is explicitly criticising a "No True Scotsman" view of Socialism.

 

In A level sociology or history you are presented with the wide range of Socialist thought, that is however the educated viewpoint Epiphany is expounding. His criticism is of people that dismiss Socialism because they look at one particular variety of it. You may never have come across this, but it crops up weekly if not daily on the forum.

[plekhanov]

I just love these "vigourous" discussions ....... when I took my A level history we had to discuss what may have happened had the wind been blowing the wrong way when the fire ships were lit during the battle with the Spanish armada and how it may have change the course of modern history.

Plekhanov ...I think that you need to get a life ...... and from your post.....as soon as possible..........

Have you got a point to go with your personal attack?

[Wildcat]

I just love these "vigourous" discussions ....... when I took my A level history we had to discuss what may have happened had the wind been blowing the wrong way when the fire ships were lit during the battle with the Spanish armada and how it may have change the course of modern history.

Plekhanov ...I think that you need to get a life ...... and from your post.....as soon as possible..........

 

Hello Saracen,

 

are you still the self declared anti-socialist that sees positive value in socialist cooperatives like the Kibbutz movement?

 

Or have you got bored with that contradiction and you are hoping to find a different way to troll this debate?

[plekhanov]

In what way is the Op an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy? As I read it Epiphany is explicitly criticising a "No True Scotsman" view of Socialism.

Well perhaps you should read it again, the follow paragraph is about a clear an example of a 'no true scotsman' as you'll ever see:

 

"Socialism" is constantly equated with the Soviet Union - a statist, authoritarian, capitalist experiment. It is equated with the state controlling all resources, the consolidation of the free individual into a herded, unthinking collective.

 

Not only a denial that the USSR was socialist but a claim that it was actually capitalist.

 

In A level sociology or history you are presented with the wide range of Socialist thought, that is however the educated viewpoint Epiphany is expounding. His criticism is of people that dismiss Socialism because they look at one particular variety of it. You may never have come across this, but it crops up weekly if not daily on the forum.

 

What will never be discussed, as long as this artificial concision is maintained within academic and media institutions, is that state-socialism is only one branch of socialism that developed from Marxist reactionism. Detail.

 

That is clearly a claim that academic institutions teach that Soviet state socialism is the only form of socialism.

[plekhanov]

Yes I have been to the library...and the result is ...the Democrats or the Republicans get into power...or did I miss something....no dont tell me the Eskimos took power......

Your initial claim was that only Democrats and Republicans get to vote not that only they get into power.

 

Getting to vote and getting into power are obviously two very different things.

[Harleyman]

The reason that Republicans and Democrats are the only two parties that get intio power is simply because the other alternate parties have whacko and unrealistic agendas that no one with any sense of reality could vote for

[plekhanov]

The reason that Republicans and Democrats are the only two parties that get intio power is simply because the other alternate parties have whacko and unrealistic agendas that no one with any sense of reality could vote for

That and the fact that it's always difficult to break into a two party system when there's a fptp electoral system, not even Theodore Roosevelt could manage it.

[epiphany]

Not only a denial that the USSR was socialist but a claim that it was actually capitalist.

 

I'm not alone in this view. The Soviet Union was a perfect example of a capitalist state with a class society. If you observe the hierarchical structure of the Soviet system, the only difference between that and a neoliberal capitalist society is that the capital was held exclusively by an elite faction, a ruling class - this could just as well be capitalism at its most centralised.

 

What will never be discussed, as long as this artificial concision is maintained within academic and media institutions, is that state-socialism is only one branch of socialism that developed from Marxist reactionism. Detail.

 

That is clearly a claim that academic institutions teach that Soviet state socialism is the only form of socialism.

 

On reflection, I shouldn't have broad-brushed all academic institutions like that, you're right. I do, however, stand by the assertion that the media and many sources constantly equate socialism with a Soviet style system.

 

There is a common misconception out there, you must admit. Not just with socialism (as that was just an example I chose), but with most prominant political ideologies - something is causing people to conflate what is clearly a complex and convoluted spectrum of political thought into very defined "camps".

 

A liberal is X Y Z

 

A conservative is X Y Z

 

...mostly based on the identity of a political party.

[plekhanov]

I'm not alone in this view. The Soviet Union was a perfect example of a capitalist state with a class society.

Of course you aren't alone in that view, lots of socialists who understandably find the abject moral and practical failure of the USSR an embarrassment to their cause try to deny that it was socialist. Just as lots of American conservatives took to denying Bush Jnrs status as a conservative as the scale of his failure became evident.

 

If you observe the hierarchical structure of the Soviet system, the only difference between that and a neoliberal capitalist society is that the capital was held exclusively by an elite faction, a ruling class - this could just as well be capitalism at its most centralised.

Oh please the 'only difference' There are huge differences at every level of society. Would you care to specify "a neoliberal capitalist society" so we can do direct comparison between it and the USSR?

 

On reflection, I shouldn't have broad-brushed all academic institutions like that, you're right. I do, however, stand by the assertion that the media and many sources constantly equate socialism with a Soviet style system.

Well of course they do just as they constantly equate fascism with fascist regimes, it's hardly surprising that the media tend to associate socialism with major and massively significant examples of people attempting to put socialism into practice. For your next trick are you going to complain about the media associating the recent invasion of Iraq with Neo-Conservatism?

 

There's a clear tendency in the US media to confuse social democracy and and form of socialised governmental service with full on socialism but I really don't think the same thing happens here in anything outside the most politicised right wing media.

 

There is a common misconception out there, you must admit. Not just with socialism (as that was just an example I chose), but with most prominant political ideologies - something is causing people to conflate what is clearly a complex and convoluted spectrum of political thought into very defined "camps".

 

A liberal is X Y Z

 

A conservative is X Y Z

 

...mostly based on the identity of a political party.

Of course their is many people find it much easier not to devote much thought into such matters and operate on crude stereotypes. But just because some/many people see the world in poorly defined black and white rather than subtly graduated shades of grey that doesn't justify your attempts to pretend that black is white.

[epiphany]

Of course you aren't alone in that view, lots of socialists who understandably find the abject moral and practical failure of the USSR an embarrassment to their cause try to deny that it was socialist. Just as lots of American conservatives took to denying Bush Jnrs status as a conservative as the scale of his failure became evident.

 

I may have misunderstood your position, but are you claiming that Bush was a conservative? The brains behind his administration would prove otherwise. The size of his government would prove otherwise!

 

There is no embarrassment because the USSR was a blatant perversion of the socialist idea. Whilst masquerading as socialism, it had typical elements of capitalism - wage labour, commodity production, a class society, a non-public central bank and a capitalist class that commanded the economy through a management class.

 

Oh please the 'only difference' There are huge differences at every level of society. Would you care to specify "a neoliberal capitalist society" so we can do direct comparison between it and the USSR?

 

In terms of centralised ownership/control of capital, there is not much difference as far as many non-statist socialists, anarchists and libertarians are concerned.

 

For your next trick are you going to complain about the media associating the recent invasion of Iraq with Neo-Conservatism?

 

Not complain, no, but certainly pull them up on it, because it's not an exclusively neoconservative tactic.

 

Besides, even if the media are rightly identifying "socialist experiments gone wrong", that doesn't mean those particular reactionaries of Marxist thought have a monopoly over the breadth of socialist thought. By being deliberately non-specific about the detail of such systems (due to concision), the media and other soundbite reliant information sources end up manufacturing these new and robust ideological boundaries.

 

There's a clear tendency in the US media to confuse social democracy and and form of socialised governmental service with full on socialism but I really don't think the same thing happens here in anything outside the most politicised right wing media.

 

Really? Ok, but you can only go on your own experiences and I mine.

 

Of course their is many people find it much easier not to devote much thought into such matters and operate on crude stereotypes. But just because some/many people see the world in poorly defined black and white rather than subtly graduated shades of grey that doesn't justify your attempts to pretend that black is white.

 

I'm not attempting to pretend anything. I have come to the conclusion, and not for lack of good reason, that many people believe the extent of socialist thought is, ultimately, for the state to own and control all capital and property. That's the encapsulation people see in their minds. Time and time again I have come across these stereotypes, so don't tell me I'm somehow the one pretending black is white here.