Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Inaccurate Labels, Was Re: Neg Income Tax
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 22:44:19 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>>
>>> Isn't it interesting that you consider the Trudeau Liberals to be not left
>>> of centre. How can you explain the HUGE increases in spending if they are
>>> not left? How can you explain the FIRA and other intrusive regulatory
>>> agencies? 
>
>>
>>It's a shame your political education has been so neglected that you 
>>don't understand what constitutes a socialist. That you can label 
>>Liberals as socialists boggles the mind.
>>
>
>Tax'n'spend Tax'n'spend Tax'n'Spend Tax'n'spend!!!!
>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.
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. 

>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

- 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....

- 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!

- 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?

- 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?

>"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)

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.

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.

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.

>>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. 
>>
>>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. 

>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.

Socialists DO want to overthrow the capitalist system. That's their goal.
The NDP is scared stiff of real socialists.

>
>>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. 

>>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.
>
>To sum, (now I'm getting assertive!): if it fails, it's socialism.
>If it succeeds, it is capitalist, free market, and recognises an 
>individual's right to liberty, property and self determination.
>
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.

>>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 
Wacky Bennett the first a socialist? He did nationalize B.C. Electric, 
you know. And which of the several hundred ways to confiscate property
did the social democrats enact? 

>>Perhaps it would be easier to visualize the total spectrum as a circle 
>>rather than as a straight line. Starting at the centre, to the left you'd 
>>find the NDP somewhat left, then the Greens and some of the eco-types, 
>>then the Communists (if there are any left) then the Maoists, Trots, etc.
>>Starting at the centre again, going to the right, you'd find, 
>>considerably right, the Liberals, somewhat further right the
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.theory