4 ms·

> Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated Socialism. Most

> Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated Socialism. Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference. Reginald wrote, "I don't like the idea of anyone forcing me to accept socialism" - that's good and healthy. Socialism, unfortunately, now has strong connotations of control involved. If he's for people being able to choose their own life and destiny, I think he'd be best off picking a word or phrase that says that. "Free action" is the closest I know. Why lock 90%+ of people out of the discussion because they don't know the terminology?

notahacker 16y ago
One thing that "capitalism" and "socialism" share is the connotations of control associated with them _by their opponents_
steveklabnik 16y ago
Why would he invent a new term when libertarian socialism has such a history already, and is used by prominent thinkers such as Chomsky?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
raganwald 16y ago
Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference. Upmodded. Wouldn't it be nice if a by-product of our discussion was for one or more people to say to themselves, "Hey, Socialism isn't a single monolithic thing, there are shades of grey involved. The next time someone says that re-organizing health care is Socialist, I will ask them what kind of socialism is involved?"
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  Unfortunately, the people who are saying things like "re-organizing health care is Socialist" are also the type of people would wouldn't care that there is a distinction that might be relevant. They have conflated socialism and communism, and there can be no reasonable types of communism.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  It's a media thing: socialism -> bad capitalism -> good So any kind of social behaviour is labeled socialism, whether it is a health care plan (how could universal health care ever be construed as a bad thing?) or pensions are leftwing and socialist, therefore bad. You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new. I think it is as much a remnant of the cold war as it is a lack of information and education.
  - edanm 16y ago
    "You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new." Not to mention what happens when someone says "Python is better than Ruby" or vice versa... :)
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    It's a media thing I beg to differ. I'm not going to make claims of a vast media conspiracy, but it is most certainly not the case that the media casts socialism as bad and capitalism as good. For example, I submit that one of the most hackneyed themes of movies is the greedy capitalist exploiting others or preventing needed initiatives. As far as I can see, the media consistently mis-frames the economic issues such that today's corporatism (corporate welfare, rent seeking, regulatory capture, etc.) are cast as problems of capitalism, when in fact they are antithetical to that system. And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such. In short, I think that the media is just messed up, and anybody on either side of the philosophical divide that accepts media input unfiltered, is going to be horribly confused. EDIT: I reversed the sense of good/bad in 1st paragraph. It doesn't really matter, since my thesis is that they're completely confused.
    - kscaldef 16y ago
      And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such. Don't forget the military. Universal health care, pensions, subsidized housing, job security, etc are all socialist; except somehow when applied to the military.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 16y ago
Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference. But when someone tries to articulate it, you first (incorrectly) attribute the idea to Karl Marx, and then try to dissuade him from even using the word. 'Free action' is a useless term in this context, because it captures nothing of the cooperative or mutual elements that Raganwald is discussing.

notahacker 16y ago

One thing that "capitalism" and "socialism" share is the connotations of control associated with them _by their opponents_

steveklabnik 16y ago

Why would he invent a new term when libertarian socialism has such a history already, and is used by prominent thinkers such as Chomsky?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

raganwald 16y ago

Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference. Upmodded. Wouldn't it be nice if a by-product of our discussion was for one or more people to say to themselves, "Hey, Socialism isn't a single monolithic thing, there are shades of grey involved. The next time someone says that re-organizing health care is Socialist, I will ask them what kind of socialism is involved?"

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
Unfortunately, the people who are saying things like "re-organizing health care is Socialist" are also the type of people would wouldn't care that there is a distinction that might be relevant. They have conflated socialism and communism, and there can be no reasonable types of communism.
jacquesm 16y ago
It's a media thing: socialism -> bad capitalism -> good So any kind of social behaviour is labeled socialism, whether it is a health care plan (how could universal health care ever be construed as a bad thing?) or pensions are leftwing and socialist, therefore bad. You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new. I think it is as much a remnant of the cold war as it is a lack of information and education.
- edanm 16y ago
  "You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new." Not to mention what happens when someone says "Python is better than Ruby" or vice versa... :)
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  It's a media thing I beg to differ. I'm not going to make claims of a vast media conspiracy, but it is most certainly not the case that the media casts socialism as bad and capitalism as good. For example, I submit that one of the most hackneyed themes of movies is the greedy capitalist exploiting others or preventing needed initiatives. As far as I can see, the media consistently mis-frames the economic issues such that today's corporatism (corporate welfare, rent seeking, regulatory capture, etc.) are cast as problems of capitalism, when in fact they are antithetical to that system. And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such. In short, I think that the media is just messed up, and anybody on either side of the philosophical divide that accepts media input unfiltered, is going to be horribly confused. EDIT: I reversed the sense of good/bad in 1st paragraph. It doesn't really matter, since my thesis is that they're completely confused.
  - kscaldef 16y ago
    And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such. Don't forget the military. Universal health care, pensions, subsidized housing, job security, etc are all socialist; except somehow when applied to the military.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 16y ago

Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference. But when someone tries to articulate it, you first (incorrectly) attribute the idea to Karl Marx, and then try to dissuade him from even using the word. 'Free action' is a useless term in this context, because it captures nothing of the cooperative or mutual elements that Raganwald is discussing.