4 ms·

Yeah, it's not like they used "Socialist" in the full name of the republic or something...</deadpan> For anyone interested who doesn't understand the spectrum

Yeah, it's not like they used "Socialist" in the full name of the republic or something...</deadpan> For anyone interested who doesn't understand the spectrum of socialist organization, read almost any book by Ludwig von Mises (start with "Socialism", where he catalogs the socialist orers of the early 1920s) and work your way forward.

hackerboos 13y ago
>Yeah, it's not like they used "Socialist" in the full name of the republic or something Like North Korea uses Democratic?
- dsego 13y ago
  It was an attempt at humour, notice the deadpan end tag. Deadpan is dry humour, just imagine Ricky Gervais, Steve Carell or Zach Galifianakis saying the sentence out loud.
- sageikosa 13y ago
  We can surely judge whether North Korea is democratic (in fact, very few places are "truly" in the Hellenic Athenian Greek sense: democratic). Judging whether something is "truly" socialistic is arguably harder, since while the goal of democracy is a system by which the public expresses its favor or disfavor for laws and policies; socialism's goals (each according to its need) may not be achievable at all (at least if we look at the long term track record (1)). If that is so, all we are left is what a socialist regime intends, and whether it organizes itself (at least formally) as a socialist order. (1) From a long term track record, there "problem" of the perfect social organization hasn't been "solved" by anything. We can, however, see that some things are "less wrong"...
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    I think you are confusing one articulation of a motivation for socialism with what socialism is; when Marx used that slogan he wasn't explaining what socialism was, but what, in his view, it could enable once fully realized. What socialism is is public ownership/control of the means of production.
    - sageikosa 13y ago
      I understand that socialism (as an ideology) believes public ownership/control of the means of production is possible. It (Socialism/Marx) expected that once the "problem of production" was solved (by the capitalist order), the means to produce could be seized. What Socialism doesn't quite get is that production planning in the capitalist order is driven by the calculable profit and investment for any enterprise (even more so in large interdependent, yet independent, concerns); and that is only possible when private ownership (of everything involved, including capital) allows private risk and reward. Capitalism has never "solved production", nor will it ever. It maximizes for profit, not production. Since I know socialism isn't capable of being put into practice, all I am left with is the intention of the bannerists who fly the Socialist standard. If they want to claim a socialist state has been established, I take them at their face. They have created a state that follows the reason for the social-control of production (needs fulfillment) even if they are doomed.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I understand that socialism (as an ideology) believes public ownership/control of the means of production is possible. Its not really an ideological belief. That the public control of the means of production is possible is simple, demonstrable, tested fact. That it is desirable is (or depends on) an ideological position, but that's a different issue. > It (Socialism/Marx) expected that once the "problem of production" was solved (by the capitalist order), the means to produce could be seized. I don't think you really understand the Marxist view here. Its not that there was something that capitalism produced which socialism needed to seize. The idea that capitalism "solved" production was that that the displacement of the feudal system of property ownership by the systems of ownership which enabled capitalism removed the barriers that the feudal systems of ownership placed in the way of production. The "problem of production" that was "solved" by capitalism was the problem created by the barriers imposed by feudal property structures. It wasn't about production planning in the capitalist order. Socialism views capitalism's property structures as producing similar barriers to the desirable distribution of the outputs of production to the barriers that feudal property structures put in the way of production in the first place, which is the essence of the "problem of distribution". > Since I know socialism isn't capable of being put into practice Pretty much all the change in the nature of the economic systems of the West since the early 20th century has been due to socialism being put into practice. Modern mixed economies are pretty much entirely about changing the nature of (both subject and scope) of property rights from what they were in the system for which socialists like Marx coined the term "capitalism" to describe in ways which increase public control of the means production and exchange. If something happens, it is, ipso facto, not impossible.

hackerboos 13y ago

>Yeah, it's not like they used "Socialist" in the full name of the republic or something Like North Korea uses Democratic?

dsego 13y ago
It was an attempt at humour, notice the deadpan end tag. Deadpan is dry humour, just imagine Ricky Gervais, Steve Carell or Zach Galifianakis saying the sentence out loud.
sageikosa 13y ago
We can surely judge whether North Korea is democratic (in fact, very few places are "truly" in the Hellenic Athenian Greek sense: democratic). Judging whether something is "truly" socialistic is arguably harder, since while the goal of democracy is a system by which the public expresses its favor or disfavor for laws and policies; socialism's goals (each according to its need) may not be achievable at all (at least if we look at the long term track record (1)). If that is so, all we are left is what a socialist regime intends, and whether it organizes itself (at least formally) as a socialist order. (1) From a long term track record, there "problem" of the perfect social organization hasn't been "solved" by anything. We can, however, see that some things are "less wrong"...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  I think you are confusing one articulation of a motivation for socialism with what socialism is; when Marx used that slogan he wasn't explaining what socialism was, but what, in his view, it could enable once fully realized. What socialism is is public ownership/control of the means of production.
  - sageikosa 13y ago
    I understand that socialism (as an ideology) believes public ownership/control of the means of production is possible. It (Socialism/Marx) expected that once the "problem of production" was solved (by the capitalist order), the means to produce could be seized. What Socialism doesn't quite get is that production planning in the capitalist order is driven by the calculable profit and investment for any enterprise (even more so in large interdependent, yet independent, concerns); and that is only possible when private ownership (of everything involved, including capital) allows private risk and reward. Capitalism has never "solved production", nor will it ever. It maximizes for profit, not production. Since I know socialism isn't capable of being put into practice, all I am left with is the intention of the bannerists who fly the Socialist standard. If they want to claim a socialist state has been established, I take them at their face. They have created a state that follows the reason for the social-control of production (needs fulfillment) even if they are doomed.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I understand that socialism (as an ideology) believes public ownership/control of the means of production is possible. Its not really an ideological belief. That the public control of the means of production is possible is simple, demonstrable, tested fact. That it is desirable is (or depends on) an ideological position, but that's a different issue. > It (Socialism/Marx) expected that once the "problem of production" was solved (by the capitalist order), the means to produce could be seized. I don't think you really understand the Marxist view here. Its not that there was something that capitalism produced which socialism needed to seize. The idea that capitalism "solved" production was that that the displacement of the feudal system of property ownership by the systems of ownership which enabled capitalism removed the barriers that the feudal systems of ownership placed in the way of production. The "problem of production" that was "solved" by capitalism was the problem created by the barriers imposed by feudal property structures. It wasn't about production planning in the capitalist order. Socialism views capitalism's property structures as producing similar barriers to the desirable distribution of the outputs of production to the barriers that feudal property structures put in the way of production in the first place, which is the essence of the "problem of distribution". > Since I know socialism isn't capable of being put into practice Pretty much all the change in the nature of the economic systems of the West since the early 20th century has been due to socialism being put into practice. Modern mixed economies are pretty much entirely about changing the nature of (both subject and scope) of property rights from what they were in the system for which socialists like Marx coined the term "capitalism" to describe in ways which increase public control of the means production and exchange. If something happens, it is, ipso facto, not impossible.