Bipartisan health care forum

[deanhills]

How many words do you know where the meaning has completely changed?

It only happens with political terms, because an agenda is being served by perverting their meanings.

Quite a large list when I was in Canada for a long while. Enough to create embarassment. For example a rubber in other parts of the world means something different than an eraser in North America. There is a difference between a hooter that is used elsewhere to refer to a horn. The United States has evolved and grown separate from the UK for centuries, so has Canada, but along the same lines as the United States, and so have Australia and South Africa, although the latter two seem to be closer to UK English still, albeit with different accents.

 

[Dirk]

Quite a large list when I was in Canada for a long while. Enough to create embarassment. For example a rubber in other parts of the world means something different than an eraser in North America. There is a difference between a hooter that is used elsewhere to refer to a horn. The United States has evolved and grown separate from the UK for centuries, so has Canada, but along the same lines as the United States, and so have Australia and South Africa, although the latter two seem to be closer to UK English still, albeit with different accents.

Fair enough.

But it is an ideology - an idea developed over time by political philosophers. Liberal philosophers include John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes and J.S. Mill. Libertarian socialist philosophers include Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta.

Saying that Liberalism has changed completely in its meaning is like saying Anarchism has changed. It hasn't. It was developed by various philosophers. When Governments or the media use it in a different context than its meaning, it does not change the meaning of the word, it is a perversion of the meaning.

I don't even know what I mean any more, to be honest.

 

[deanhills]

Fair enough.

But it is an ideology - an idea developed over time by political philosophers. Liberal philosophers include John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes and J.S. Mill. Libertarian socialist philosophers include Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta.

Saying that Liberalism has changed completely in its meaning is like saying Anarchism has changed. It hasn't. It was developed by various philosophers. When Governments or the media use it in a different context than its meaning, it does not change the meaning of the word, it is a perversion of the meaning.

I don't even know what I mean any more, to be honest.

The meaning of liberalism has evolved into something different, but with its roots still in the original liberalism. Like American and Australian sound a bit different to UK English. There is an accent in it that is unique to the United States and unique to Australia.

 

[Dirk]

The meaning of liberalism has evolved into something different, but with its roots still in the original liberalism. Like American and Australian sound a bit different to UK English. There is an accent in it that is unique to the United States and unique to Australia.

If you use a term such as liberal out of context, you do not change the meaning of the word, you are simply incorrect in invoking it. Just because Americans use the word in the wrong way, does not change the meaning. In political science, there is a recognised definition. And that is the dedication to free market capitalism and individual freedom.

 

[deanhills]

If you use a term such as liberal out of context, you do not change the meaning of the word, you are simply incorrect in invoking it. Just because Americans use the word in the wrong way, does not change the meaning. In political science, there is a recognised definition. And that is the dedication to free market capitalism and individual freedom.

Are you then saying that there is one standard for the English language and that is in the Oxford dictionary?

 

[chuck schmidt]

Seen from an English or European point of view maybe. I would rather see it as the political terms have evolved as the political system of the US has evolved. The meanings are different. Not perverted.

Perhaps a more appropriate description is that the English language is not a dead language like Latin, but alive and changing? It is not evolving with the US political system but world wide because it is the internationally recognized language of commerce.

 

[Dirk]

Are you then saying that there is one standard for the English language and that is in the Oxford dictionary?

No. I'm saying political science trumps popular usage.

Same with socialism. Socialism is "workers' or social ownership of the means of production". The popular understanding is "the state owns industry". It's simplistic and false.

 

[deanhills]

No. I'm saying political science trumps popular usage.

Same with socialism. Socialism is "workers' or social ownership of the means of production". The popular understanding is "the state owns industry". It's simplistic and false.

I don't have a problem with meanings of words evolving. For me that is actually progress as that which is static and unused usually dies. There is plenty of focus on liberalism in the United States. Especially given the Dems. All of most politicians in the United States are thoroughly educated in the use of political terms. I like where they are going with the use of these words.

 

[chuck schmidt]

No. I'm saying political science trumps popular usage.

Same with socialism. Socialism is "workers' or social ownership of the means of production". The popular understanding is "the state owns industry". It's simplistic and false.

Disagree. "Socialism" is state participation in the market place where society deems it is best for the people. Models of participation can range from mostly government owned to mostly private owned.

 

[Dirk]

Disagree. "Socialism" is state participation in the market place where society deems it is best for the people. Models of participation can range from mostly government owned to mostly private owned.

I disagree. That is an aspect of one vision of socialism.

I am a libertarian socialist. I'm actually a very staunch socialist, and, to tell a secret, an ex-communist. I agree with workers' ownership of the means of production. I also agree with social ownership of utilities and services.

However, I do not believe the state is necessary, or even desirable. I see it as only serving bourgeois interests and responding to the demands of large concentrations of capital. I also agree with the abolition of private property, but that isn't entirely relevant.

Socialism can be achieved through the use of the state - which is what "authoritarian" (they are usually actually very socially liberal" socialists wish. Most I know of want to achieve that through implementing participatory or direct democracy, along with soviets to exercise social control of the means of production, utilities and services. They are often also called state socialists, though it almost always involves huge decentralisation.

There are other socialists - I can't remember what the name for them is - like our dear comrade David, who wish for workers' ownership of the means of production and social control of services (i've no idea about utilities - comrade, care to enlighten us?) through a small state and - in some cases - soviets.

 

[chuck schmidt]

I disagree. That is an aspect of one vision of socialism.

I am a libertarian socialist. I'm actually a very staunch socialist, and, to tell a secret, an ex-communist. I agree with workers' ownership of the means of production. I also agree with social ownership of utilities and services.

However, I do not believe the state is necessary, or even desirable. I see it as only serving bourgeois interests and responding to the demands of large concentrations of capital. I also agree with the abolition of private property, but that isn't entirely relevant.

Socialism can be achieved through the use of the state - which is what "authoritarian" (they are usually actually very socially liberal" socialists wish. Most I know of want to achieve that through implementing participatory or direct democracy, along with soviets to exercise social control of the means of production, utilities and services. They are often also called state socialists, though it almost always involves huge decentralisation.

There are other socialists - I can't remember what the name for them is - like our dear comrade David, who wish for workers' ownership of the means of production and social control of services (i've no idea about utilities - comrade, care to enlighten us?) through a small state and - in some cases - soviets.

Could you decipher that to where a person can see a practical example?

 

[Dirk]

Could you decipher that to where a person can see a practical example?

Catalonia, Cuba and EZLN.

Only to an extent in each.

 

[David]

There are other socialists - I can't remember what the name for them is - like our dear comrade David, who wish for workers' ownership of the means of production and social control of services (i've no idea about utilities - comrade, care to enlighten us?) through a small state and - in some cases - soviets.

Utilities would be run by the gov't, do you really want larger and/or ricer neighborhoods monopolizing garbage pick up and getting priority power? The gov't, not bound by the daily whims of the people, is better. But they need to stay out of the general economy. State-Capitalism doesn't work, regardless of wether or not the economy in geared toward capitalism or socialism as the US and Soviet Union have both proven. I support Soviets in that area as the people know what they need/want better then some corporate owned politician 3,000 miles away.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Catalonia, Cuba and EZLN.

Only to an extent in each.

So Europe and Canada aren't socialist?

 

[dave]

No. I'm saying political science trumps popular usage.

Same with socialism. Socialism is "workers' or social ownership of the means of production". The popular understanding is "the state owns industry". It's simplistic and false.

Again with the "workers owning the means of production".

Exactly, how does that work for someone like a farmer? Does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns his tractors, land, seeds, water, fertilizer? What if some people think that land is better spent being converted to a WalMart, others want it to be used to grow corn, others to raise cows. How do people decide what to do with the land? What about the farmers time, who owns and controls that? If "society" says to grow corn, the farmer says he will only grow wheat, what now? Kick him to the side and bring in a new farmer? And farming is hard work, what incentive does the farmer have for doing all that work instead of getting a nice government job sitting at a desk shuffling paper?

Or does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns the profit? Again with the farmer, what does he get out of it? What exactly is the "profit"? The entire crop he grows, or just a portion of the crop, or the money made when the crop is sold? What if "society" says the profit needs to go to provide universal health care, but the farmer says he needs a new tractor or there won't be a crop next year?

What is the mechanism used to make all of these decisions? National voting? Committees selected to make these decisions? Who selects the committee members?

 

[Dirk]

I support Soviets in that area as the people know what they need/want better then some corporate owned politician 3,000 miles away.

Yah.

So Europe and Canada aren't socialist?

Social democratic, I'd say? I wouldn't say a mixed economy is automatically socialism. Anyway, if they did count as socialist, then just about every single liberal democracy in the world would. Including the US.

Again with the "workers owning the means of production".

Yep.

Oh, now you change the subject...

Exactly, how does that work for someone like a farmer? Does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns his tractors, land, seeds, water, fertilizer?

Depends who buys them, I should think. So far as i know, the farm itself would be in social ownership. I'm not entirely clued up on that version.

What if some people think that land is better spent being converted to a WalMart, others want it to be used to grow corn, others to raise cows. How do people decide what to do with the land? What about the farmers time, who owns and controls that?

Democratically decided i should think.

If "society" says to grow corn, the farmer says he will only grow wheat, what now? Kick him to the side and bring in a new farmer?

Depends on what the owners decide. Just as in capitalism.

And farming is hard work, what incentive does the farmer have for doing all that work instead of getting a nice government job sitting at a desk shuffling paper?

Getting paid? It'll be necessary to have all areas producing, so no doubt there'd be some incentive.

Or does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns the profit? Again with the farmer, what does he get out of it? What exactly is the "profit"? The entire crop he grows, or just a portion of the crop, or the money made when the crop is sold? What if "society" says the profit needs to go to provide universal health care, but the farmer says he needs a new tractor or there won't be a crop next year?

I think the main theme is a central treasury. I would imagine he gets a decent wage too, though. The farmer, as a part of society, would no doubt be valued enough - considering he/she's an expert through experience - to be heard justifying it. As well as voting for their opinion themselves.

What is the mechanism used to make all of these decisions? National voting? Committees selected to make these decisions? Who selects the committee members?

Well, in practical terms, national voting seems like pure idiocy to me. Honestly, i've not much idea about this form of socialism. I'd think that firstly, in practice, there'd probably be a very non-interventionist stance adopted by society. Especially since most people value civil liberty, so that'd probably be emphasised. Secondly, all socialists want power to the people, so i should think extreme localist direct democracy. Or even consensus decision-making, for that matter.

I'll also mention that since the farmer doesn't own the land solely (he would own it), it's not just his decision to make. The system does, however, give the worker (or in this case farmer) more power. And more money would be available for social projects (like, to use your example, to provide healthcare).

It's different, but it's far less restrictive than your post suggests you imagine - or indeed the current system generally is. Not my preferred method of socialism, mind.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Again with the "workers owning the means of production".

Exactly, how does that work for someone like a farmer? Does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns his tractors, land, seeds, water, fertilizer? What if some people think that land is better spent being converted to a WalMart, others want it to be used to grow corn, others to raise cows. How do people decide what to do with the land? What about the farmers time, who owns and controls that? If "society" says to grow corn, the farmer says he will only grow wheat, what now? Kick him to the side and bring in a new farmer? And farming is hard work, what incentive does the farmer have for doing all that work instead of getting a nice government job sitting at a desk shuffling paper?

Or does "owning the means of production" mean that society owns the profit? Again with the farmer, what does he get out of it? What exactly is the "profit"? The entire crop he grows, or just a portion of the crop, or the money made when the crop is sold? What if "society" says the profit needs to go to provide universal health care, but the farmer says he needs a new tractor or there won't be a crop next year?

What is the mechanism used to make all of these decisions? National voting? Committees selected to make these decisions? Who selects the committee members?

There are many models. A good argument can be made on economic criteria that the US is a corporate welfare state with the military and military industrial complex being the primary means of distribution. Reagan's Secretary of the Navy (his name escapes me) described it as such in his book 600 Ship Navy.