Sick to death of Idiots posting Labels without knowing what they mean

Mr. Incognito

I'm sick to death of people in this forum who have no idea what political labels mean and frequently apply policies that have nothing to do with the doctrines.

I will be using this thread as a reference point in threads because it will save all of us a hell of a lot of time I hope. Why something along these lines isn't already stickied on the politics forum in general I have no idea. It'd be great if a politics mod could sticky it and edit in any way they want to add to it's accuracy.

For the generally ignorant:

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude;[4] often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.[5]

Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[7]

Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned; wage labor is predominant; supply, demand and price are at least partially determined by markets; and profit is distributed to owners who invested in the business. Capitalism entails the predominance of business and commercial activity, production for exchange (commodity production) and also refers to the process of capital accumulation. Also see rise of financial capitalism, which controls all other forms of capitalism.

There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category.[1] There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[2] Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[3]

Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.[1]

Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution and only possible after a transitional stage develops the productive forces, leading to a superabundance of goods and services.[2][3]

"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.[5][6] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum,[7][8][9][10][11][12] although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.[13][14]


Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[20]

Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[21] They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.[21]

Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment.[22] Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements of the Enlightenment.[23] They oppose liberalism — as a bourgeois movement — and Marxism — as a proletarian movement — for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[24] They present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[25] They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly governing a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.[26]

Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2] Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes: equality and freedom.[4][dubious – discuss] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power.[5] and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[6][7]

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[8][9] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated – through the use of balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.[10][11][12]

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government or constitutional protections of individual liberties from democratic power, it is possible for dissenting individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[13] and procedurally.[14] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[15][16]

Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating subject for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.

In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups also.

An oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military might, or religious hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words "ὀλίγος" (olígos), "a few"[2] and the verb "ἄρχω" (archo), "to rule, to govern, to command".[3] Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy.

Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on public servitude to exist. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group. Some city-states from ancient Greece were oligarchies. The combination of the words plutocracy and oligarchy make the word plutarchy.

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

* "No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
* "Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this." [5]

Corporatism also known as corporativism is a system of economic, political, or social organization that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles amongst individuals.[1][2] The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body".[2] Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body.[3] Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies.

Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.[4] Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities.[5] Aside from humans, certain animal species are known to exhibit strong corporate social organization, such as penguins.[6] In science, cells in organisms are recognized as involving corporate organization and interaction.[7]

Corporatist views of community and social interaction are common in many major world religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Islam.[8] Corporatism has been utilized by many ideologies of the political spectrum, including: absolutism, capitalism, collectivism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, social democracy, socialism, and syndicalism.[9]

Despotism is a form of government by which a single entity rules with absolute and unlimited power, and may be expressed by an indvidual as an autocracy or through a group as an oligarchy. Despotism itself means to "rule in the fashion of a despot", and should not be confused with the actual and singular position of 'Despot'.

Despot comes from the Greek despotes, which roughly means "master" or "one with power", and was used to translate a wide variety of titles and positions. It was used to describe the unlimited power and authority of the Pharaohs of Egypt, it was employed in the Byzantine court as a title of nobility, it was used by the rulers of Byzantine vassal states and was also adopted as a title of the Byzantine Emperors. Thus, despot is found to have different meanings and interpretations at various times in history, and can not be expressed by a single definition. This is similar to the other Greek titles of Basileus and Autokrator, which, along with Despot, have all been used to describe at different times everything from a local chieftan, to simple ruler, to a king or an emperor.

Colloquially, 'despot' has been applied pejoratively to a person, particularity a head of state or government, who abuses his power and authority to oppress his people, subjects or subordinates. In this sense, it is similar to the pejorative connotations that have likewise arisen with the term 'tyrant'. 'Dictator' also has developed nearly similar pejorative connotations, though 'despot' and 'tyrant' tend to stress cruelty and even enjoyment therefrom, while 'dictator' tends to imply more harshness or unfair implimentation of law.

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator. It has three possible meanings:

1. A Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
2. A government controlled by one person or a small group of people.In this form of government the power rests with one person.Such power often obtained forcibly.A dictator usually takes away much of people's freedom.Those who dare to criticise the government are severely punished.
3. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

Among the most extreme examples of a dictatorship in recent history is Nazi Germany.[citation needed]

In the twentieth century and early twenty-first century, hereditary dictatorship remained a relatively common phenomenon.

I'm not going in the sub sets but if anyone else uses a term like socialism out of context again I'm going to go insane.

kev9100

AMEN.

Just because someone is moderately centre-left, that does'nt make them a socialist.

Amerika

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I'm not going in the sub sets but if anyone else uses a term like socialism out of context again I'm going to go insane.

Promise?

Mr. Incognito

I promise to go insane if you promise to read the above. Okay? Deal

Amerika

Actually, any move to extend power to the government has been symbolized by the term “socialism” here by the masses in the states. Currently, “socialism” has become a euphemism, or rather a supplant for the greater government control of social values and/or the takeover of economic sections of the private sector. A better term might actually be “Creeping Socialism” rather than just "socialism" (maybe a new subset? ). Therefore this post might better be found in the “Political Theory” section and not the “US Politics” section, because there, on a pure academic debate - definitions would trump US political realities.

Eliot Rosewater

Amerika, the best term to use would be social democracy.

Andrew Heywood, an a British A-Level Chief Examiner in Government and Politics and the author of a number of books on politics, says socialism is "an ideology that is defined by its opposition to capitalism and its attempt to provide a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative".

In that case you couldn't describe Mr Obama as a socialist; he's not all-out rejecting the market whatsoever. However you could make a case to support saying that he is "socializing medicine", as he is effectively rejecting capitalism being applied in a pure sense to the medical system.

I think the best term is still social democracy though.

Mr. Incognito

Actually, any move to extend power to the government has been symbolized by the term “socialism” here by the masses in the states. Currently, “socialism” has become a euphemism, or rather a supplant for the greater government control of social values and/or the takeover of economic sections of the private sector. A better term might actually be “Creeping Socialism” rather than just "socialism" (maybe a new subset? ). Therefore this post might better be found in the “Political Theory” section and not the “US Politics” section, because there, on a pure academic debate - definitions would trump US political realities.

Oh dear. Do you even understand what Obamacare has done. It has not moved the health sector into the control of government, it has merely regulated the capitalist market to ensure that unfair practises are banned. It has not abolished the capitalist health care market merely regulated it and in some states allowed the government to provide competition which was sorely lacking. Can you show me a section of the private sector that government has taken over?

Creeping socialism? Regulation of a free market does not equal socialism.

Actually, any move to extend power to the government has been symbolized by the term “socialism” here

I am aware of this. That is why I had to start this thread before another clown comes in here shouting the house down about socialism because he saw some ignorant commentator say it on TV and it sounds good.

rovert

*Emails to Glenn Beck*

northwest100

Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, from Greek: κλέπτης (thieve) and κράτος (rule), is a term applied to a government that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats), via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means "rule by thieves". Not an "official" form of government (such as democracy, republic, monarchy, theocracy) the term is a pejorative for governments perceived to have a particularly severe and systemic problem with the selfish misappropriation of public funds by those in power.

Kakistocracy - Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens

Anonymous1987

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In that case you couldn't describe Mr Obama as a socialist; he's not all-out rejecting the market whatsoever. However you could make a case to support saying that he is "socializing medicine", as he is effectively rejecting capitalism being applied in a pure sense to the medical system.

It really is difficult to categorise in traditional terminology. The government enacted laws to force more market participants for the benefit of society, no nationalisation has occurred. However socialised medicine would seem to be more accurate in describing the NHS rather than the US framework. Maybe it is better defined as social capitalism.

Social capitalism (Socio-capitalism), as a theory or political or philosophical stance, challenges the idea that socialism and capitalism are inherently antagonistic.[1] The essence of social capitalism is that markets work best and output is maximized through sound social management of the macroeconomy. Social capitalism posits that a strong social support network for the poor enhances capital output. By decreasing poverty, capital market participation is enlarged. Social capitalism also posits that government regulation, and even sponsorship of markets, can lead to superior economic outcomes, as evidenced in government sponsorship of the internet or basic securities regulation.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, any move to extend power to the government has been symbolized by the term “socialism” here by the masses in the states. Currently, “socialism” has become a euphemism, or rather a supplant for the greater government control of social values and/or the takeover of economic sections of the private sector. A better term might actually be “Creeping Socialism” rather than just "socialism" (maybe a new subset? ). Therefore this post might better be found in the “Political Theory” section and not the “US Politics” section, because there, on a pure academic debate - definitions would trump US political realities.

I wonder how you view the increased role of the state in peoples private lives? Such as, I don't know, the state intervening on the definition of marriage?

InReality

Denerick wrote: »

I wonder how you view the increased role of the state in peoples private lives? Such as, I don't know, the state intervening on the definition of marriage?

The State already has a definition for marriage , now its just changing it.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

I wonder how you view the increased role of the state in peoples private lives? Such as, I don't know, the state intervening on the definition of marriage?

Socialnomianism?

Mr. Incognito

Therefore this post might better be found in the “Political Theory” section and not the “US Politics” section, because there, on a pure academic debate - definitions would trump US political realities.

The problem seems to be isolated here. People posting in politics seem to know what they are talking about.

I wonder how you view the increased role of the state in peoples private lives?

The Patriot Act pretty much ripped up the right to privacy out of the US Constitution.

Sandvich

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

It really is difficult to categorise in traditional terminology. The government enacted laws to force more market participants for the benefit of society, no nationalisation has occurred. However socialised medicine would seem to be more accurate in describing the NHS rather than the US framework. Maybe it is better defined as social capitalism.

Interesting. I always like reading all these different frameworks so it's not just LIBERTARIANISM and COMMUNISM. Still got a lot to learn, though. Georgism is kind of weird.

Black Swan

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Social capitalism (Socio-capitalism), as a theory or political or philosophical stance, challenges the idea that socialism and capitalism are inherently antagonistic.[1] The essence of social capitalism is that markets work best and output is maximized through sound social management of the macroeconomy. Social capitalism posits that a strong social support network for the poor enhances capital output. By decreasing poverty, capital market participation is enlarged. Social capitalism also posits that government regulation, and even sponsorship of markets, can lead to superior economic outcomes, as evidenced in government sponsorship of the internet or basic securities regulation.

It would appear that social capitalism is a more appropriate term than socialism (or creeping socialism) to describe the shift to, or away from, government regulation in recent years?

Example: The Bush administration appeared to be moving towards free market capitalism, and away from social capitalism when they began deregulating investment banks (e.g., Goldman Sachs) in 2004 through SEC actions led by Bush appointee Chairman Cox, including employment cuts of the number of SEC regulators to where the investment banks had considerably less oversight. This departure of SEC regulation and oversight contributed to the creation of high risk investment vehicles, which, when they failed, caused many investment banks to fail in 2008 (like Goldman Sachs), thereby contributing substantially to the Great Recession that the US is currently experiencing. The Obama administration is now moving in the opposite direction of Bush, reestablishing investment bank regulation and SEC oversight typical of social capitalism (not the often proclaimed, and sensationalistic sounding socialism, or creeping socialism, that occurs on this forum or Rush Limbaugh talk shows).

Mr. Incognito

An astute observation.

It's all well and good to point to free markets as an economic theory but they don't factor in human greed.

The same way Russia and Cuba are the results of social theory compounded into a non socialist structure through the interference of human greed.

Anonymous1987

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

An astute observation.

It's all well and good to point to free markets as an economic theory but they don't factor in human greed.

The same way Russia and Cuba are the results of social theory compounded into a non socialist structure through the interference of human greed.

The foundation of economic theory is actually based on human greed defined as self interest and most economists do recognise market failures. The problem is that many people with political agenda's or strong political philosophies use very basic over simplified economic principles to communicate their ideas. Ron Paul is an example, he uses Austrian Economics to support his libertarian principles however Austrian Economics hasn't been considered mainstream economics for quite some time and isn't very well regarded by most economists, largely because it rejects mathematical and statistical modelling of the economy. Without empirical support economics is just another political philosophy.