Islam and Universal Healthcare (Zakat And What We Can Learn)

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Suicidesoldier#1

Idk.

Left is about freedom right?


Free market = freedom.

You want to put controls on stuff- now think about that.

Good ******** God.

[azulmagia]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

azulmagia

The National "Socialist" party espoused no discernable form of socialism.

Fake socialisms are as old as socialism. The Communist Manifesto list several such. They are not real socialisms since they reflect the interests of classes other than the working class and they consequently deny the political supremacy of the working class.

Not entirely true. The early party was formed out of German Working groups, and was intended to extend social welfare only to people perceived to be racially, or nationally pure to Germany. But if one looks through the NSDAP's 25 Point Program, one can see a few socialist policies:

7 We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

Standard Bismarckian welfare-statism. That's not socialism, anymore than the mustard is the whole hamburger. I wonder if you can explain why any of these policies are socialist - other than the brute fact that socialists have advocated for policies similar or even identical to these.

Quote:

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Also not a socialism demand in se.

Quote:

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

No more socialist than an ESOP.

Quote:

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Expansion of the policy started by the anti-Socialist Bismarck.

Quote:

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

No more a socialist demand than free soil for all.

Quote:

Yes, alright, it may not be "true" socialism, but it's absurd to suggest that only one form of socialism is correct, or fits within the definition of what constitutes a FORM of socialism.

That's not the argument.

The argument is in effect, a cow is a cow and not a horse, not that a horse is an "incorrect" kind of cow.

National "Socialism" is no form of socialism whatsoever because it is

(a) Racialist, and hence in radical opposition to the Enlightenment tradition socialism comes from.

(b) Does not even pretend to abolish class distinctions, but to force unity of the classes under one nation which is wrongly held to be "above" the class struggle. If your stated aim is not to achieve a classless society, ipso facto your aim is non-socialist.

(c) National Socialism is not democratic, whereas socialism is democratic.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

azulmagia

Blind Guardian the 2nd

azulmagia

The National "Socialist" party espoused no discernable form of socialism.

Fake socialisms are as old as socialism. The Communist Manifesto list several such. They are not real socialisms since they reflect the interests of classes other than the working class and they consequently deny the political supremacy of the working class.

Not entirely true. The early party was formed out of German Working groups, and was intended to extend social welfare only to people perceived to be racially, or nationally pure to Germany. But if one looks through the NSDAP's 25 Point Program, one can see a few socialist policies:

7 We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

Standard Bismarckian welfare-statism. That's not socialism, anymore than the mustard is the whole hamburger. I wonder if you can explain why any of these policies are socialist - other than the brute fact that socialists have advocated for policies similar or even identical to these.

Quote:

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Also not a socialism demand in se.

Quote:

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

No more socialist than an ESOP.

Quote:

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Expansion of the policy started by the anti-Socialist Bismarck.

Quote:

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

No more a socialist demand than free soil for all.

Quote:

Yes, alright, it may not be "true" socialism, but it's absurd to suggest that only one form of socialism is correct, or fits within the definition of what constitutes a FORM of socialism.

That's not the argument.

The argument is in effect, a cow is a cow and not a horse, not that a horse is an "incorrect" kind of cow.

National "Socialism" is no form of socialism whatsoever because it is

(a) Racialist, and hence in radical opposition to the Enlightenment tradition socialism comes from.

(b) Does not even pretend to abolish class distinctions, but to force unity of the classes under one nation which is wrongly held to be "above" the class struggle. If your stated aim is not to achieve a classless society, ipso facto your aim is non-socialist.

(c) National Socialism is not democratic, whereas socialism is democratic.

They're socialist because they advocate social ownership via the state, and in terms of the late 19th century definition, were definitely socialist through their criticism of capitalism and a proposition of an alternative system that rested upon such an ideal.

An absolutist definition of socialism only exists to serve people who wish to cast out systems upon the basis of their purity. For example:

A) Is the Enlightenment tradition from which socialism originated vital to its continuation? Doubtful.

B) Class abolition is a Marxist goal, and not all socialism is Marxist. Moreover, plenty of Marxist forms of socialism advocate the use of force (via the revolution) to bring about the preferred form of society. I really don't see why you refuse to accept that Marxist ideology =/= the only socialist ideology.

C) Leninism wasn't democratic, but it was certainly socialist.

Tell me, what Bible are you drawing your absolutist definitions from? Why do you refuse to accept political nuance?

Also, I was not arguing that a horse is a cow. To me you're arguing a cow is not a cow because one of them has horns.

[azulmagia]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

They're socialist because they advocate social ownership via the state,

No, they advocated nationalisation.

Nationalisation is NOT inherently socialist; it is NOT NECESSARILY a form a social ownership; I can cite passages from socialists acknowledging that nationalized property can become the basis for new forms of exploitation and tyranny.

Quote:

....and in terms of the late 19th century definition, were definitely socialist through their criticism of capitalism and a proposition of an alternative system that rested upon such an ideal.

The late 19th century definition you appeal to was, if anything, invented by Marx, up to and including the inherently democratic nature of socialism.

Quote:

An absolutist definition of socialism only exists to serve people who wish to cast out systems upon the basis of their purity.

My definition is not "absolutist" unless all definitions are. I wish to cast out systems based on their non-identity with what socialism IS - indeed based on their repudiation of what constitutes the differentia specifica of socialism.

Quote:

A) Is the Enlightenment tradition from which socialism originated vital to its continuation? Doubtful.

Socialism is left-wing, therefore its position vis-a-vis the Enlightnment is one of descent and faithfulness to it, even if it does not remain within its original limitations insofar as those are bourgeois. Therefore at least some measure of fidelity is necessary to socialism's identity.

Repudiation of Enlightenment universalism in favour of a mystic adherence to racialist beliefs therefore breaks with socialism.

Quote:

B) Class abolition is a Marxist goal, and not all socialism is Marxist.

Equality as a socialist goal entails the abolition of class society. Otherwise you have mere political equality which is bourgeois.

Nothing in Nazism goes beyond the bourgeois order in any progressive sense, if anything it reverts to ideas more appropriate to the bronze age.

Quote:

Moreover, plenty of Marxist forms of socialism advocate the use of force (via the revolution) to bring about the preferred form of society.

The revolution is about the proletariat attaining state power, and hence to ultimately abolish class society. The Nazi use of force in the class struggle is to will its "negative" effects to go away, like King Canute trying to order the tide to recede. That class society will endure is taken as axiomatic. Their use of force is thus used for diametrically opposed reasons to that of the socialists.

Quote:

I really don't see why you refuse to accept that Marxist ideology =/= the only socialist ideology.

I have not SAID anything in this thread that would allow you to infer that. Not even Marx claimed that his own conception was the "only" socialist one, in fact he disavows this in the Manifesto, and in his actual political actions. He would have never co-operated with mere reformists in the First International otherwise, for example. For Marx the criterion had nothing to do with the subscription to any set of doctrines, only the insistence that socialism not be utopian nor be aligned with any class interest except for that of the proletariat. He discounts the other tendencies because of these reasons, not because of reasons of "doctrine". And the democratic criterion is part and parcel of the proletarian class supremacy one.

Quote:

C) Leninism wasn't democratic, but it was certainly socialist.

If by Leninism you mean Soviet Russia under Lenin, Lenin himself did not consider Soviet power non- or anti-democratic; Lenin did not aspire to any form of personal dictatorial rule; and while internal Party democracy came under increasing limitation it did exist. Leninists in fact agree that democracy is an inherent part of socialism. Indeed, Lenin explictly refers to democracy more than Marx does.

That Leninism reverted to Blanquism in practice is another matter, and certain Marxists who had known Marx and Engels personally, like Karl Kautsky, repudiated the Soviet Regime as socialist precisely due to the question of whether or not it was democratic!

Quote:

Tell me, what Bible are you drawing your absolutist definitions from? Why do you refuse to accept political nuance?

I am refusing to accept the blatant misuse of the word and its appropriation by a tyrannical regime which both murdered socialists and perpetuated capitalism in practice.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

azulmagia

Content

Before we proceed any further, please offer the definition of socialism you are using to contest my assertions. We've gone a little bit too far with you saying what it isn't without you saying what it is.

Also please note I don't wish to assert the viability of National Socialism as a means of governing a state. I simply contest this notion that socialism is such an exclusive form, and wish to know why you abhor the use of this title for something other than its ideal form.

[azulmagia]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

azulmagia

Content

Before we proceed any further, please offer the definition of socialism you are using to contest my assertions. We've gone a little bit too far with you saying what it isn't without you saying what it is.

Just sticking to what can be inferred from what I have already: Socialism is defined by (a) the conviction that the ideals of the Enlightenment (e.g. liberty, equality, fraternaity) are unattainable under capitalism; (b) hence that classes themselves are to be abolished; (c) as well as private property in the means of production; (d) and that socialism, while in the interests of all, reflects the specific class interests of the working class and thus seeks to establish the political supremacy of that class as the first step towards the final goal; and (e) that even if force is used to establish that supremacy, at least the transitional state is to be run on libertarian democratic lines, if not in full communism itself.

Quote:

Also please note I don't wish to assert the viability of National Socialism as a means of governing a state. I simply contest this notion that socialism is such an exclusive form, and wish to know why you abhor the use of this title for something other than its ideal form.

"Ideal form" has nothing to do with it. The simple fact that if you lump all the movements that have ever claimed to be socialist or called themselves socialist, you get more than strange bedfellows, you get a totally incoherent mess. You don't even get invariance on the question of social ownership - including whether there is to be such.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

azulmagia

Blind Guardian the 2nd

azulmagia

Content

Before we proceed any further, please offer the definition of socialism you are using to contest my assertions. We've gone a little bit too far with you saying what it isn't without you saying what it is.

Just sticking to what can be inferred from what I have already: Socialism is defined by (a) the conviction that the ideals of the Enlightenment (e.g. liberty, equality, fraternaity) are unattainable under capitalism; (b) hence that classes themselves are to be abolished; (c) as well as private property in the means of production; (d) and that socialism, while in the interests of all, reflects the specific class interests of the working class and thus seeks to establish the political supremacy of that class as the first step towards the final goal; and (e) that even if force is used to establish that supremacy, at least the transitional state is to be run on libertarian democratic lines, if not in full communism itself.

Quote:

Also please note I don't wish to assert the viability of National Socialism as a means of governing a state. I simply contest this notion that socialism is such an exclusive form, and wish to know why you abhor the use of this title for something other than its ideal form.

"Ideal form" has nothing to do with it. The simple fact that if you lump all the movements that have ever claimed to be socialist or called themselves socialist, you get more than strange bedfellows, you get a totally incoherent mess. You don't even get invariance on the question of social ownership - including whether there is to be such.

And what source is this from? Because if this is your Marxist appropriation of socialism, I'm not buying it. With all due respect, I have not been given reason to believe that I should take your definition at face value.

Of course ideal form has something to do with it, as you are challenging that something can be considered socialism at all despite holding socialistic values. That's akin to, say, arguing a Parliamentary democracy isn't actually democracy because while it is a form of government by the people, it isn't done in entirely the "right" way.

What?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Suicidesoldier#1

Idk.

Left is about freedom right?


Free market = freedom.

You want to put controls on stuff- now think about that.

Good ******** God.

Less government interventions and things, but look at what it aims to do!

[azulmagia]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

azulmagia

You don't even get invariance on the question of social ownership - including whether there is to be such.

And what source is this from? Because if this is your Marxist appropriation of socialism, I'm not buying it.

My point is that you CANNOT define socialism by what all movements CALLING themselves socialist have in common, because beyond the name they really do have nothing in common, including, as I have said, the question of social ownership. Even more when the various "socialisms" are shooting one another with live ammo.

In other words, at least some of the "socialisms" MUST be pretenders to the title, if socialism is to be not more than a name - which is how Republicans use it. Obama can only be considered socialist if the term has already been reduced to an empty container that holds any idea that dissents from laissez-faire capitalism and not dating before the Bavarian Illuminati.

Quote:

With all due respect, I have not been given reason to believe that I should take your definition at face value.

Because it derives from the actual origins of the idea in history. Distinctly socialist ideas did in fact arrive among Enlightenment adherents who came to believe that capitalism and political emancipation were insufficient, it came to be identified as having to do with the working class as early as the 1830s, and its democratic nature was a result of the actual class struggle and came to be acknowledged as integral to its identity, even among opponents of the idea like Nietzsche.

Quote:

Of course ideal form has something to do with it, as you are challenging that something can be considered socialism at all despite holding socialistic values.

You're begging the entire question of what "socialistic values" are.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Suicidesoldier#1

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Suicidesoldier#1

Idk.

Left is about freedom right?


Free market = freedom.

You want to put controls on stuff- now think about that.

Good ******** God.

Less government interventions and things, but look at what it aims to do!

They encourage some forms of government intervention while opposing others. It's almost like things aren't black and white.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

azulmagia

Blind Guardian the 2nd

azulmagia

You don't even get invariance on the question of social ownership - including whether there is to be such.

And what source is this from? Because if this is your Marxist appropriation of socialism, I'm not buying it.

My point is that you CANNOT define socialism by what all movements CALLING themselves socialist have in common, because beyond the name they really do have nothing in common, including, as I have said, the question of social ownership. Even more when the various "socialisms" are shooting one another with live ammo.

In other words, at least some of the "socialisms" MUST be pretenders to the title, if socialism is to be not more than a name - which is how Republicans use it. Obama can only be considered socialist if the term has already been reduced to an empty container that holds any idea that dissents from laissez-faire capitalism and not dating before the Bavarian Illuminati.

Quote:

With all due respect, I have not been given reason to believe that I should take your definition at face value.

Because it derives from the actual origins of the idea in history. Distinctly socialist ideas did in fact arrive among Enlightenment adherents who came to believe that capitalism and political emancipation were insufficient, it came to be identified as having to do with the working class as early as the 1830s, and its democratic nature was a result of the actual class struggle and came to be acknowledged as integral to its identity, even among opponents of the idea like Nietzsche.

Quote:

Of course ideal form has something to do with it, as you are challenging that something can be considered socialism at all despite holding socialistic values.

You're begging the entire question of what "socialistic values" are.

Your point is that you say so without showing me why socialism can only exist in line with what you say it must be. I don't deny that you may be right; what I want to see is validation of your assertion by reference to the works of others.

Also, I demonstrated that certain figments were held in common, but you effectively said that they "weren't socialist enough" because they did not work within Marx's class dichotomy. It's almost like they weren't ******** Marxists or something.

So you're denying that Obama engages in some socialistic aspects of government? Why? He clearly does in his desire to bolster the welfare state. That doesn't make his government a socialist one, however. Are you also saying that the National Health Service of the UK is not a socialist concept?

If you're going to relate it to historical concepts then you can supply the sources of those concepts and arguments.

You're right. I am.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Suicidesoldier#1

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Suicidesoldier#1

Idk.

Left is about freedom right?


Free market = freedom.

You want to put controls on stuff- now think about that.

Good ******** God.

Less government interventions and things, but look at what it aims to do!

They encourage some forms of government intervention while opposing others. It's almost like things aren't black and white.

It's almost like their view is completely self contradictory and they need to think things out a little more! eek

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Suicidesoldier#1

It's almost like their view is completely self contradictory and they need to think things out a little more! eek

No. Wanting the government to respect individual rights does not conflict with communal provision of services by the government. You'd be a lot more tolerable if you didn't have to be ******** educated on EVERYTHING.

[azulmagia]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Your point is that you say so without showing me why socialism can only exist in line with what you say it must be. I don't deny that you may be right; what I want to see is validation of your assertion by reference to the works of others.

You can't prove a definition, you can only show that it makes sense.

Quote:

Also, I demonstrated that certain figments were held in common, but you effectively said that they "weren't socialist enough" because they did not work within Marx's class dichotomy. It's almost like they weren't ******** Marxists or something.

I said nothing of the kind. Bismarck co-opted parts of the socialist program as part of the effort to get rid of the socialist movement. That they became popular enough to compel even the Nazis to advocate them doesn't make the Nazis socialist.

The figments on their own are not socialist, only the way they are put together make them socialist. And leaving out certain of them rule out a socialist identity, because they are essential.

Quote:

So you're denying that Obama engages in some socialistic aspects of government? Why?

If someone who does not support socialism co-opts bits of it, it's to make sure that socialism AS A WHOLE does not prevail, since people like Bismarck, FDR, and Obama would no longer have the option to be in a higher class than anyone else.

Quote:

He clearly does in his desire to bolster the welfare state. That doesn't make his government a socialist one, however. Are you also saying that the National Health Service of the UK is not a socialist concept?

It is not socialist in and of itself. It originated among socialists, it is indispensible to socialism, no socialist would ever repudiate it, but once you realise you cannot provide health care for all on a laissez-faire basis, it becomes SIMPLE HUMANITY itself to favour universal health care. The socialists, like on so many issues, just got the ethical and factual issue right first.

Quote:

If you're going to relate it to historical concepts then you can supply the sources of those concepts and arguments.

The source is the actual historical process, which is the same criterion as to why we call capitalism that and not merchantilism, for example. Not some arbitrarily selected figure's pet view, though the core of socialism as I have defined it was first explicitly stated by Marx. Despite this it has a wider consensus than you might think, including e.g. George Orwell, Eugene Debs and so forth.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Suicidesoldier#1

It's almost like their view is completely self contradictory and they need to think things out a little more! eek

No. Wanting the government to respect individual rights does not conflict with communal provision of services by the government. You'd be a lot more tolerable if you didn't have to be ******** educated on EVERYTHING.

All war is bad, RAWR!

...Let's go invade Somalia, the rights of this country were fought and died for rawr!


Let's ban fast food and meat!

Hard core drugs are perfectly applicable and stuff though.


LET'S MAKE THE GOVERNMENT SUPER WEAK AND THEN USE OUR SUPER POWERFUL GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS!

RAWR!