22-02-2005 02:57									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin You apparently can't read or else you'd have seen the numerous posts where I said it was a crime the those responsible have/will go to jail. Much easier to just get on a soap box and ignore inconvient facts though isn't it?

I think we all know pretty well where you stand on these issues. I said its just another war crime and war criminals are tried in the Hague, right?Now why dont I see you wanting to send senior officials or anyone else there. Also, you never said its a war crime. You'd probably want the guy in jail just because he got caught. So dont give me this BS about you caring.

And one other thing. Why dont you go rant to someone else who isnt "stupid" or "doesnt have the slightest clue" Mr. Iraq. Because you arent convincing anyone. And frankly you are starting to piss me off.

Tecumseh and Ted Striker

	22-02-2005 03:03									#92
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Actually it just shows you need to take a Poli-Sci class and learn the definition of a socialist government compared to a communist or free market government. If you did that then you might have a leg to stand on. The defining definition of communism is that the government controls all means of production, socialism difers because it contends that all major means of production should be controlled by the state while minor means of production remain in private ownership. This is supposedly done to more equally share profits and to maintain them for the national well being. A quick look at the large number of state owned industries in both China and Russia shows that they are indeed socialist forms of government.

Socialist state includes a bit more than that.

You know, under your definition half of the European countries are or were socialist just couple of years ago. While Russia and China do have a large sectors state owned it doesnt make them "leftist" in anyway. This **** just gets more unbelievable everytime you quote me.

	22-02-2005 03:05									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by laurentius You know, under your definition half of the European countries are socialist. This **** just gets more unbelievable everytime you quote me.

Yes, most of Europe is, isn't it? That's the universally accepted definition and you can either follow the google dictionary link I posted or look it up yourself but they will all tell you the exact same thing.

You really should take that poli-sci class and educate yourself.

	22-02-2005 03:08									#94
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by techumseh State ownership of the economy is one important aspect of Socialism, but not the only one. It's interesting that the Chinese government is actively promoting capitalism (and very successfully) while running a country which currently has a predominantly state owned economy. Does that make them socialists? I don't think so.

Socialist governments are a half breed between communism (100% government ownership) and free market capitalism where the government owns the major means of production but nonvital means are privately owned. That is the text book definition. Sure, there are different other details but that's the defining feature.

	22-02-2005 03:09									#95
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Yes, most of Europe is, isn't it? That's the universally accepted definition and you can either follow the google dictionary link I posted or look it up yourself but they will all tell you the exact same thing. You really should take that poli-sci class and educate yourself.

Err, at least over here, "socialist" doesn't have the same meaning. Europe has a social-democratic society model, but actual socialist countries were in the Soviet bloc.

It's hard to be a socialist country when most of the economy belongs to the private market, and is controlled by the owners.

	22-02-2005 03:12									#96
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Socialist governments are a half breed between communism (100% government ownership) and free market capitalism where the government owns the major means of production but nonvital means are privately owned. That is the text book definition. Sure, there are different other details but that's the defining feature.

We don't have the same textbooks. Communism is the ideal society envisioned by Marx, and the countries of the Soviet bloc claimed to be in the transitional phase toward communism. None was communist, and AFAIK, none even claimed to be.

An important characteristic of the Communist society is the lack of State. It doesn't precisely compute with "100% government control".

	22-02-2005 03:14									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Yes, most of Europe is, isn't it? That's the universally accepted definition and you can either follow the google dictionary link I posted or look it up yourself but they will all tell you the exact same thing. You really should take that poli-sci class and educate yourself.

While Russia and China do have a large sectors state owned it doesnt make them "leftist" in anyway.

And by the way I have asian studies, wich is political history as my second subject. I've also taken several courses in political science. I have also a pretty good idea of what "leftism" means in Europe. Does that qualify? And you know what else? China and Russia are NOT considered by ANY SANE lecturer/professor or student leftist countries. Looks like you better take again the Poli-Sci class you took in the 80ties.

	22-02-2005 03:21									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

How in the WORLD is most of Europe 'socialism' and Russia and China leftist countries? Russia and China seem to be oligarchies run in a kind of mish-mosh of left and right (capitalism and large social programs).

If anyone really needs a poly sci class, it's Oerdin (oh, and I have a B.A. in Poly Sci).

	22-02-2005 03:23									#99
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui How in the WORLD is most of Europe 'socialism' and Russia and China leftist countries? Russia and China seem to be oligarchies run in a kind of mish-mosh of left and right (capitalism and large social programs). If anyone really needs a poly sci class, it's Oerdin (oh, and I have a B.A. in Poly Sci).

Imran. I'm talking about government systems not government policies. We are talking about systems of government.

	22-02-2005 03:30									#100
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Imran. I'm talking about government systems not government policies. We are talking about systems of government.

That may explain the misunderstanding as to why nobody here agrees with you that people consider Russia and China to be "lefty".

But even then, I don't think authoritarianism and Statism are any specifically characteristical of a left or right system of government.

	22-02-2005 03:34									#101
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Meaning of SOCIALISM
Pronunciation: 'sowshu`lizum

Definition:

1. [n] a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. [n] an economic system based on state ownership of capital

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/socialism

Also by definition Communism is far left, socialism is moderate left, reactionary is far right, conservative is moderate right. If one wishes to be more precise then they can add in additional terms like social-democrat or Christian-democrat but the basics are the same.

	22-02-2005 03:39									#102
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I'm with Spiffor. Even considering governmental systems, Russia and China are not really left. China used to be left, but since embracing capitalism, it seems their government system has undergone incredible changes. Russia, I'm not sure how their governmental system is leftist.

	22-02-2005 03:41									#103
	Remove this text

Actually this is where it all started from:

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Lefties don't want to ***** about fellow leftie governments like China or Russia. They'd much rather whine about the evil US.

Whether we were talking about government systems or policies doesnt make much difference. China or Russia are not "fellow leftie" in any level.

	22-02-2005 03:41									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Dictionaries aren't precisely a good source to define precise concepts. They're a good source to have the significance of words as they're used in everyday life.

If you wish to use this dictionary definition (which btw goes against your claim that the West European countries are socialist, because very much of our economy is private), you shouldn't be speaking too much about poli-sci. Because any poli-sci professor would turn your definition down as insufficient, unless you're in the introduction course.

	22-02-2005 03:44									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Meaning of SOCIALISM Pronunciation: 'sowshu`lizum Definition: 1. [n] a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2. [n] an economic system based on state ownership of capital http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/socialism Also by definition Communism is far left, socialism is moderate left, reactionary is far right, conservative is moderate right. If one wishes to be more precise then they can add in additional terms like social-democrat or Christian-democrat but the basics are the same.

HAHA... using the dictionary to define governmental systems!

And btw, Europe doesn't have state ownership of industry or capital. Much of their industry and capital is private.

	22-02-2005 03:47									#106
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Also by definition Communism is far left, socialism is moderate left, reactionary is far right, conservative is moderate right. If one wishes to be more precise then they can add in additional terms like social-democrat or Christian-democrat but the basics are the same.

Not quite, because there are not two dimensions to the controls of the means of production, but three (owner / State / company's workers) Besides, there's the State interventionism in matters other than the control of the means of production.

Sweden is as capitalist as the US (Both in Sweden and the US, the owner controls the means of production), but Sweden is assuredly a social-democracy for its generous welfare system, and the fact that basically everybody earns the same (I'm exaggerating a little bit ).

An economic system is made of plenty of dimensions, and the control of the means of production, or State intervention in general matters, are only a small part of all those possible dimensions. It is a mistake to try to bog them down in a one-dimension axis (private vs government control), because such an axis wouldn't be able to explain a great many current political systems.

	22-02-2005 03:48									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If a government comes to power in a socialist country and actively changes it into a capitalist one, you can't by any stretch call it a socialist government, any more than you could have called Margaret Thatcher a socialist when she came to power in the then semi-socialist UK.

	22-02-2005 03:51									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor An economic system is made of plenty of dimensions, and the control of the means of production, or State intervention in general matters, are only a small part of all those possible dimensions. It is a mistake to try to bog them down in a one-dimension axis (private vs government control), because such an axis wouldn't be able to explain a great many current political systems.

Indeed. Perhaps the worst thing ever introduced what the linear axis for defining political philosophies. There are nuances and small details which make it not able to fit on the axis very neatly. For example, how capitalist is the US when government spending is so large (albeit less than European countries).

	22-02-2005 03:53									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Definitions like that are never static anyway and might even be subjective to some people like me. For example if you ask me "christian-democratic" governments should be having leftist policies. Because for me christianity is about caring for you neighbour and those in need. This is why I have no problem being both christian and leftist unlike so many other people. And I'm not alone in this perception, our president is both leftist and christian, so is my mother.

Another example is the difference between "liberal" in Europe and in the US. Or how different republicans are from what they were a hundred years ago.

Using dictionaries is irrelevant because you cant "lock" these definitions.

	22-02-2005 03:55									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I'm with Spiffor. Even considering governmental systems, Russia and China are not really left. China used to be left, but since embracing capitalism, it seems their government system has undergone incredible changes. Russia, I'm not sure how their governmental system is leftist.

Imran, they are no longer Communist but they both still fit the definition of Socialism I suppose there is room to argue that socialism as a government system isn't always leftist but by convention socialism is typically defined as a moderate leftist government and communism as a hard leftist government. Wouldn't you agree?

	22-02-2005 03:58									#111
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor If you wish to use this dictionary definition (which btw goes against your claim that the West European countries are socialist, because very much of our economy is private), you shouldn't be speaking too much about poli-sci. Because any poli-sci professor would turn your definition down as insufficient, unless you're in the introduction course.

I have to agree with you there. Europe has become progressively less socialist since the 1970's when most major western states had large government holdings. I believe France is one of the last hold out to have a few large companies still controlled by the government though even this is changing quickly.

	22-02-2005 04:01									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Err, at least over here, "socialist" doesn't have the same meaning. Europe has a social-democratic society model, but actual socialist countries were in the Soviet bloc.

This could be the crux of the problem then. In the US the Soviet block was called communist while partial state control of industry was called socialism. Thus French or British government control of automakers, steel makers, railroads, etc... made them a socialist system while the Soviets total control of all productive means made them communist.

	22-02-2005 04:01									#113
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Imran, they are no longer Communist but they both still fit the definition of Socialism I suppose there is room to argue that socialism as a government system isn't always leftist but by convention socialism is typically defined as a moderate leftist government and communism as a hard leftist government. Wouldn't you agree?

I'd argue that they DON'T fit the definition of socialism. Socialism was the USSR when they were at their ideological peak (ie, they were never Communist in the true sense of the word). China used to be Socialist, but not anymore. Russia? Naw, not close.

	22-02-2005 04:04									#114
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui HAHA... using the dictionary to define governmental systems! And btw, Europe doesn't have state ownership of industry or capital. Much of their industry and capital is private.

If you go to the google dictionary the differences are control of major means of production vs contol of all means of production. That's the difference between socialism and communism.

Europe has moved away from state ownership since the 1970's but such government control of the big companies still exists in China and Russia. To their credit they've been moving away from statist socialism for a while now (except for the effective nationalization of companies like Yukos in Russia).

	22-02-2005 04:08									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I'd argue that they DON'T fit the definition of socialism. Socialism was the USSR when they were at their ideological peak (ie, they were never Communist in the true sense of the word). China used to be Socialist, but not anymore. Russia? Naw, not close.

What definitions are you using? Both used to have 100% government control but have since moved to a mixed government/private system with the stated long term goal of a totally private system. Essentially this is a transition period. China still has vast state owned industries even if the state owned companies now only make up maybe 25% of the economy (UR would know the exact figure so maybe he can help us).

	22-02-2005 04:09									#116
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin If you go to the google dictionary the differences are control of major means of production vs contol of all means of production. That's the difference between socialism and communism. Europe has moved away from state ownership since the 1970's but such government control of the big companies still exists in China and Russia. To their credit they've been moving away from statist socialism for a while now (except for the effective nationalization of companies like Yukos in Russia).

State ownership of companies also existed in Franco's Spain. Is that called Socialism? No... Fascism isn't considered to be Socialism.

Socialism is the transitory government to Communism. Communism is a stateless community living in harmony, like people used to do in pastoral times, yadda. Socialism is the way to it, by the government owning ALL (or almost all) means of production and having an economic system based not based on the market. USSR back in the day, or China under Mao.

Social-Democracy is a left-leaning way to curb the excesses of capitalism by introducing some aspects of socialism in order to have a more humane system. Hell, the argument can be made that the US is a social-democracy system (and I'd argue that it is, just one that includes more capitalism than others).

	22-02-2005 04:11									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor n economic system is made of plenty of dimensions, and the control of the means of production, or State intervention in general matters, are only a small part of all those possible dimensions. It is a mistake to try to bog them down in a one-dimension axis (private vs government control), because such an axis wouldn't be able to explain a great many current political systems.

OK, I understand. You're using a three or even four dimensional political spectrum instead of the traditional left-right spectrum. Point taken.

If you've ever played Heart of Iron then it's like the triangle Communism/Facism/Democratic system they had only with Government/Worker/Owner. Right?

	22-02-2005 04:21									#118
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui State ownership of companies also existed in Franco's Spain. Is that called Socialism? No... Fascism isn't considered to be Socialism.

I think Franco claimed to be socialist but then again so did Hitler.

quote: Socialism is the transitory government to Communism. Communism is a stateless community living in harmony, like people used to do in pastoral times, yadda. Socialism is the way to it, by the government owning ALL (or almost all) means of production and having an economic system based not based on the market. USSR back in the day, or China under Mao.

It sounds like the main difference we're having here is between theoretical communism (I.E. what Marx envisioned in the 19th century) and the communists & socialists practiced in the 20th century. I imagine there are also differences between the common definition of "socialism" and the academic definition of "socialism".

	22-02-2005 04:21									#119
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin If you've ever played Heart of Iron then it's like the triangle Communism/Facism/Democratic system they had only with Government/Worker/Owner. Right?

I've never played HoI, but I imagine what the triangle could look like. For the issue of control over the means of production, I'd imagine a triangle is accurate. But an economic system is not only characterized by this issue, but by others as well, such as general State interventionism, but also the modernity and sector-distribution of the economy, etc.

For example, if you look at an economic system that is made at 90% of low-tech farming, you'll call it an "Agrarian economy", and it would matter little to know if the guy who controls the farming tools is some rich farmer, the local lord, or a commune of workers.

But if we only look at the issue of control of the means of production, China is indeed definitely much more statist than western countries, which could please the Commies among us who also are statist (again, I'm thinking of Azazel). From what I gather, all land and buildings in China are government property since imperial times, and are long-term leased to private contractors, rather than definitely sold. My commie self thinks he wouldn't mind that

	22-02-2005 04:26									#120
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yes, I have to agree that it is not really possible to define every aspect of a government's policies in just one sentence. We'd have to create dozens of different categories (social-democrat, fascist, free market, democrat, socialist, dictatorship, and all the rest would just be the beginning) o capture all the different details.

How would you recommend defining government types so that people get a good idea of what policies that government type advocates but which is still simple enough for common people to understand with a phrase?