From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:03:24 GMT

In article <kwP2wB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>liberals! socialists! 
>>
>>we fiscal conservatives. supply siders, free marketers. libertarians etc.
>>hijacked the word liberal long ago, as an epithet, slurr, curse, insult
>>etc. understand?
>>
>
>In your befuddlement you're not reading clearly. I said Liberal, not liberal.

If you mean liberalist, libertarian, economic liberalism, then OK, I 
misunderstood you. If you are trying to invoke a long past party that
may have stood for those principles, in order to argue that today's
Liberals aren't socialists, then you are wrong. let's not try to 
apply antiquated dictionary defiinitions, to what the term has come to mean,
today.

>That you are also confused about what a liberal is is not surprising. Whether 
>or not one advocates tax 'n' spend policies or not has little to do with 
>liberals or socialism, although some liberals and some socialists may have
>followed such policies. 
>
My premise is that what the party *says* it wants to accomplish, even
if it appears superficially compatable with free market economics, and
true individual liberties, doesn't matter. Got it? The NDP may pretend
to be mildly business friendly, and on paper may not want to disembowel 
what free markets we do have. But so what? If I can show that their
policies lead to the same failures that 'true Socialism' (your
definition of Socialism' then the NDP is at heart no different than
Socialism. You want to use some poli-sci's dictionary of Socialism.
I do not. The political scientists want to stick convenient labels
on political parties, as a means of classification; just as one
gives names to different breeds of dogs. Naming the superficial
qualities doesn't make a lot of difference, although it might
let you pick a less radical (and more prone to reform) political
party, but not much else. I'm more interested in where things wind
up if a political party is allowed to implement everything it says
it wants to do.

So I am not the one who is confused. You are the one who sorts out
the political parties on convenient, superficial qualities. 
You: 'The Liberals say they are business oriented, therefore they
are center right, more capitalist than socialist' Wrong. One has only
to look at the socialist tendencies of the Trudeau years to recognize
that the Liberals had a socialist streak in them. It isn't what the
political party says, it is what it does, and what is the result.

>>Maybe you should do some kind of post-modernist, neo-keynesian politically
>>correct deconstruction of the word liberal. After all, words don't have any
>>meaning anyway, right? We'll just settle for the usual liberal, style over
>>substance arguments. 
>>
>
>It's traditional sense was, and is perfectly clear, although you don't 
>seem to comprehend it. From Websters Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1983)
>come the following applicable definitions

The traditional sense? Now that's a great way to judge them. They were
once this, therefore they must still be. These dictionary definitions
are fine, but they don't correspond with what the parties are actually
doing (or advocating).
>
>- liberal : of or constituting a political party advocating or 
>associated with the principles of political liberalism; esp : of
>or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated
>with ideals of individual esp economic freedom, greater individual 
>participation in government, and constitutional, political and 
>adminstrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
>
>While this doesn't seem to describe the Liberal Party of Canada very
>well, it's hard to see what YOU would object to here....

So are we going to argue about what the Liberals should be? or what they
ARE? So we have this old definition, and we have current political
parties who use this term, to try and evoke certain pleasant images,
while cloaking what they are really up to. Style over substance.
(it doesn't matter that they DON'T fit the above definition, but they
use it, so it must apply to them. Sure. It's futile for me to say 'hey you
aren't really liberals', so therefore the meaning of the term has changed,
and can't assume the definition you give)

>
>- liberal : one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of 
>orthodox, traditional or established forms and ways
>
>Well, this is probably objectionable. Someone who's open minded. Gosh!
>And may not believe in doing everything the old way!
>
ther word it too vague, so it is almost meaningless. 

>- liberalism :a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from 
>restraint and usu. based on free competition, the self regulating market,
>and the gold standard
>
>Boy it sure sounds like radical "left wing" stuff, huh?

Nope. You are still confusing what the party says they stand for, with
what their policies do achieve, or would achieve.

If your point is that there is confusion over what the term 'liberal'
means, then I agree. If you are trying to say I'm ignorant about what
the classic definition means, then you are wrong. *they* are the ones
who cloaked themselves in the term, to make themselves palatable;
their own failure has tarnished the word they describe themselves with.

If you wan't me to believe that since a party
labels itself in a certain  way, that the party actuall IS that way;
then I don't buy it.
>
>- liberalism : a political philosophy based on belief in progress,
>the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and
>standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
>
>Well, here I can see you objecting again. Probably to the "goodness" 
>part. You capitalists all believe everyone is inherently EVIL, right?
>
You're just playing games. So if you say you're GAY, am I supposed to
think you are happy? If you say you are a liberal-democrat, am I
supposed to believe you are in favor of individual economic freedom, markets
and free enterprise?  make up your goddam mind. I really see no 
point in arguing this, because I doubt if you will say it is fine
to ignore the true meaning of one word (gay, for example), but I'm
supposed to follow another's definition to the letter (liberal).

If you do, then it's pretty selective of you; you are either a
pedant who is trying to get people to follow the dictionary to the letter
(annoying; not bad; but probably wouldn't work), or you are just
a smart ass who wants to invoke one definition but ignore others as
it suits himself.

>>"Liberals are *not* Socialists...Liberals are *socialists*" and if you 
>>can follow that argument, then you ARE a socialist.
>>
>>From our side of the fence, the Liberals are socialists. Just because
>>you don't like their particular kind of socialism, and you want to 
>>pretty up your own brand of socialism (by drawing minor distinctions)
>>doesn't change the fact that your're all of the same ilk.
>>
>
>The Liberals, aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, socialists. 
>I'll grant that they are to the left of the Tories and the Reform 
>party, but that relative position doesn't make them socialists. Hell, 
>even the bloody NDP isn't socialist. (Socialists generally scare the
>hell out of NDP'ers, who are always afraid of being seen to be 
>"revolutionary" in any way)
>

why do you say that? do you base your assertion on what the party
says it stands for, or what it actually results in?
I'll expand on why the Liberals are socialists, but I want to
hear your reasoning first, so I can find out if you are serious or not.

>There are three definitions of socialism in the same dictionary I 
>quoted from before:
>
>socialism: 1. any of various economic and political theories 
>advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration 
>of the means of production and distribution of goods
>
>This is probably the broadest realistic definition of socialism.
>
I say that any government that ends up with that, even if it doesn't
explicitly propose that, is actually socialist. If a party's
own inconsistencies and arbitrary action leads to this, or doesn't
do its best to avoid this, then it is socialist in nature, if
not in name.

>socialism 2. a: a system of society of group living in which there 
>is no private property
>
>Sort of like the kibbutz movement in Israel. Not very widely 
>supported, I think, even by those who consider themselves socialists.
>
again, a party doesn't have to explicitly advocate this; it can
wind up at that through innaction and incompetence.

why are you still throwing meaningless labels at me?

>socialism 2. b: a system or condition of society in which the means 
>of production are owned and controlled by the state
>
>Much like the first definition.
>
>socialism 3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional
>between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal 
>distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
>
>The last part of the definition is especially interesting 
>considering the way the "right" thinks of socialism as trying to 
>bring everyone to the same level.
>
you are fooling yourself. If you bring everyone to the same level,
as socialism insists, you ARE distributing goods and pay in an 
unequal way: from people who have earned it to people who haven't.
(the capitalist way is unequal, in that people who work hard, or
who happen to posses unique talents that let them overcome challenges
with less effort than others, are the ones rewarded)


>>>A "socialist" (as distinct from a social-democrat, which is a different 
>>>kettle of fish altogether) is someone who believes in a "socialist 
>>>society" as a transitory stage between capitalism and small c communism.
>>>
>>>A socialist would characterize such a society by, in the economic field, 
>>>ownership of the means of production by society as a whole; a rapid 
>>>increase in the productive forces; and planned production.
>>>
>>>Furthermore, in what may surprise some of you, a socialist WOULD expect 
>>>people to be paid more if their work was more skilled or productive - 
>>>from each according to his ability; to each according to his WORK. 

Actually, it is 'from each according to what the state steals, to each
according to what the state deems sufficient'

>>>
>>>The word "socialist", as used by many posters on this net has come to be 
>>>nothing more than an epithet uttered to attempt to discredit a policy or 
>>>program - whether or not it has any relation to socialism. 
>>>
>>but of course it's an insult. If socialist style economic principles
>>were actually valid, then it would be a term of praise, but since
>>it is false, naturally it has a negative connotation. And it is why
>>you are trying not to call yourself a socialist, when in fact you
>>are one. Dressing socialism up in 'social democracy, liberal democracy, 
>>NDP' doesn't change the concept. Whether the different proponents of
>>the said philosophies know it or not, both  'socialism'
>>and 'liberal social democracy'  lead to failure.
>
>I haven't been trying to label myself or anyone else in this discussion,
>but I have been trying to get you to use words accurately. Like most 
>people, my personal opinions include some of this, and some of that 
>philosophy, and labelling me as a socialist isn't entirely accurate. 
>Oh, it's more accurate than calling me a social democrat (that would be 
>an insult!), but it still misses the point. 
>
Your are just trying to score debating points ('use words accurately')
when I suspect that you have no real care about accuracy (I wonder
which words in your book don't have to be used accurately:
maybe dumb for people who can't speak? Moron? idiot? imbecile? 
tell me what the original meaning for those words were.)

I too am concerned about accuracy: you appear to believe that 
a party is what it claims to be. I believe a party is what it's
policies actually lead to.

>>Since you actually ARE a socialist, why do you hide from the label?
>>stand up for your beliefs, boy.
>>
>>Fine, so you don't like to call yourself a socialist. Big deal.
>>you end up with the same failure as the ones who you call the 'real'
>>socialists. But just because you say 'I'm not a big bad socialist'
>>doesn't mean it's true, and no matter how good your motives are
>>(I'll admit the NDPers tend to have nice warm 'n' fuzzy, cuddly motives)
>>you still will end up in the same place.
>>
>
>You have it wrong. I don't want to be labelled as a social democrat.
>There's a big difference between socialists and social democrats. 
>Social democrats SUPPORT the capitalist system. They want to make sure 
>everybody gets looked after, and they have all kinds of, as you said, 
>"warm 'n' fuzzy" motives. But they DON'T want to substantially alter
>the system.
>
What differences? I say that the SUPPORT for the captitalist system 
is superficial, because you have to factor in how the Social Democrats
chip away at the capitalist system, subverting it, and causing 
economic ruin, limiting individual liberty, and even harming
the groups and causes they sincerely wanted to protect.
More on that later, unless you insist on believing a politcal
party is what it SAYS it is, and not what it actually achieves.

>Socialists DO want to overthrow the capitalist system. That's their goal.
>The NDP is scared stiff of real socialists.
>
only beacause they expose how much like Socialists (as you define them)
the NDP are, jepeordizing their safe, moderate image. Perhaps
the NDP don't want to overthrow capitalism. It doesn't matter what they
WANT; if their policies are applied, they will distort and erode
the capitalist system, bringing ruin to all.

>>
>>>For example, while it is true that nationalization of a company may be 
>>>carried out by a socialist country, nationalization does not equal 
>>>socialism, and companies are often nationalized for quite unsocialist 
>>>reasons. Wacky Bennett the senior, for example, nationalized B.C. 
>>>Electric, and formed B.C. Hydro, but he was hardly a socialist or 
>>>promoting socialism.
>>>
>>
>>Since socialism at its heart has no REAL respect for individual liberty,
>>and property; it's no surprise to find that socialism rears its ugly 
>>head in so many ways. Whether it's nationalist governments, peronists,
>>NDPers, socialists, communists, national socialists, Liberals, they  wind 
>>up failing if allowed to spread and infilitrate. They all have their champion 
>>causes, and scapegoats to blame for everything.
>>
>Dogmatists of whatever stripe have the same failing, right or left. 
>They see everything through the same tinted perspective. There's nothing
>inherent in socialism that makes it incompatible with individual liberty,
>although there were certainly governments that claimed to be socialist
>that were responsible for interfering with individual liberty. There 
>were also "free-enterprise" governments that did really reprehensible
>things to individual liberty, (like Chile) but I don't claim that makes all 
>free enterprisers guilty of interfering with individual liberty. 

The socialists say  'the proletariat' is the main focus of government.
The fascists say    'the state'       is the main focus of government.
Big difference. Both sacrifice the individual to the will of 'society'
or the State. How many fascist governments can you name that DIDN't
nationalize nearly everything, and centralize prodcution (for war).

Socialism, Fascism are inherently at odds with individual liberty,
by collectivising thought and organisation, and directing it to one
goal. Substitute 'proletariat' for socialism, substitute 'the state,
the fatherland' for fascism.

>
>>>To be a socialist, you must actually have the aim of re-making society a 
>>>as a socialist society. Mere supporters of Keynesian economics (or even 
>>>of intrusive government programs) don't qualify as socialists on that 
>>>account alone. 
>>>
>>they do. They may invent different reasons why they aren't socialists,
>>but their innately flawed reasoning and false premises on human nature
>>and liberty, and on economics leads them to fail in the same way.
>>Judge a politcal philosphy by its results, not by its rhetoric.
>>
>That's crap, and you know it. It's not even logical argument!
>
>>>While some of the Liberal programs you describe were nationalistic (and 
>>>intrusive as well), none of them were designed to put all the means of 
>>>production under public ownership. They certainly weren't designed to 
>>>overthrow capitalism.
>>>
>>Who cares about the intent. I look at the results. The liberals can
>>say they are for anything they want to be for. Since their actions
>>and results are inconsistent with liberty, and since they failed
>>they are socialists!
>>
>
>Such powers of deduction! Such accuracy! No wonder political discussion 
>in this country is so ill-informed and illogical.

great. so we have people like you, who believe the only Socialists
are the ones who write it up in big red letters. No, it doesn't matter
that if you look at their past results, and analyse the premises and logical
consistency their policies, that you wind up at the same failure that
is socialism. A party doesn't have to claim it is socialist; if its
policies wind up with the same mess, then they are socialist as well.
You care about style (whether or not they say certain pleasant things)
substance doesn't matter eh? (whether they fail, how their past 
polcies failed; how their other polcicies lead to failure
if you follow through)

>
>>>As far as the NDP goes, it's a moderate social democratic party little 
>>>inclined to nationalize the entire economy in the name of the working 
>>>class. In fact, the NDP is a small l liberal reform party, composed 
>>>mainly of the middle class and yuppies with a social conscience.
>>>It's policies, while indeed favouring labour, working people in general, 
>>>and what might be termed the "underdogs" of our society at best try to 
>>>make capitalism more humane, rather than overthrow it entirely. 
>>
>>OK, not the *entire* economy? So part of it *may* be nationalized
>>(for some 'good' reason, no doubt)? Since they'll contradict all
>>principles of liberty and property by nationalizing *some* industries,
>>the fact that they'll behave arbitrarily and inconsistently with those
>>principles shows them up to be socialists. All the rhetoric and good
>>intent doesn't change what they really are. So making capitalism more
>>humane (whatever the HELL that means) justifies slavery and confiscation
>>of property and denying a person his liberty? Like it or not, that's
>>what it means, if you analyse their premises and actions. Willingly
>>and arbitrarily going against one's principles in the name of achieving
>>some other goal; and when alternatives EXIST, is wrong. It is intellectual
>>deceit. 
>>
>
>What social democrat government has espoused slavery? And since when was 

All socialist governments espouse slavery. By forcing me to work, so
that others may benefit from my work. By sacrificing my liberty and
rights to the collective whim of the majority. By ignoring property.

(*MY* concept of liberty says that I may do anything I please, as long
as I don't do anything to impose my actions on other's liberties.
Other governemnts claim the  right to limit my actions, under the
guise of protecting 'society', ie collectivisation. This just
leads to scores of victimless crimes, restricing my rights when I
have injured no one.)

>Wacky Bennett the first a socialist? He did nationalize B.C. Electric, 
>you know.

there are shades and hues. Nationalizing corporations is a socialist
act. I don't know enough about him, but certainly many actions were
tainted.

> And which of the several hundred ways to confiscate property
>did the social democrats enact? 
>
the fact that they deny the RIGHT to it is enough. (the right to hold
on to it, use it, trade it as one wishes; the right to acquire it
if one has the means.). The fact that socialists advocate theft
of property, to pay for their utopian goals.



-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics