³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982180038³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
----
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982180038³2keepts³2982180059³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³21³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982180059³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
----
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
³3minor³31³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982180038³2keepts³2982180117³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³22³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982180117³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
----
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982180038³2keepts³2982198364³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³23³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982198364³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
----
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
----
Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  When Marx used the term, remember, it referred to the condition ''after'' the state had withered away.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982180038³2keepts³2982210471³2id³21076³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³24³1username³2RichardKulisz³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982210471³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
----
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
----
Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  When Marx used the term, remember, it referred to the condition ''after'' the state had withered away.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.

----
Anarchists have had no qualms describing themselves as socialists. As for academics ... standard class warfare analysis has workers associated with AnarchisM, the rich with FascisM and the academics with StalinisM. This shows that the academic definition is wrong and also shows why it would be so wrong. Finally, the ''soviets'' in the Union of Soviets were originally conceived as anarchic. They didn't stay that way for long under the Bolsheviks but that's another matter.

In order to define right versus left or socialist versus anything, one must discern a meaningful difference betwee Fascism and Stalinism. Authoritarianism and justice are ''not'' it. The only difference I observe is in Stalinism's acknowledgement that the social good derives from individual good and not vice versa, that egalitarianism and freedom are to be desired. -- RichardKulisz
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982180038³2keepts³2982213618³2id³21284³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³25³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982213618³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
----
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
----
Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.

----
Anarchists have had no qualms describing themselves as socialists. As for academics ... standard class warfare analysis has workers associated with AnarchisM, the rich with FascisM and the academics with StalinisM. This shows that the academic definition is wrong and also shows why it would be so wrong. Finally, the ''soviets'' in the Union of Soviets were originally conceived as anarchic. They didn't stay that way for long under the Bolsheviks but that's another matter.

In order to define right versus left or socialist versus anything, one must discern a meaningful difference betwee Fascism and Stalinism. Authoritarianism and justice are ''not'' it. The only difference I observe is in Stalinism's acknowledgement that the social good derives from individual good and not vice versa, that egalitarianism and freedom are to be desired. -- RichardKulisz
³3minor³31³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982180038³2keepts³2982256029³2id³21076³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³26³1username³2JimboWales³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982256029³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
----
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
----
Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.

----
Anarchists have had no qualms describing themselves as socialists. As for academics ... standard class warfare analysis has workers associated with AnarchisM, the rich with FascisM and the academics with StalinisM. This shows that the academic definition is wrong and also shows why it would be so wrong. Finally, the ''soviets'' in the Union of Soviets were originally conceived as anarchic. They didn't stay that way for long under the Bolsheviks but that's another matter.

In order to define right versus left or socialist versus anything, one must discern a meaningful difference betwee Fascism and Stalinism. Authoritarianism and justice are ''not'' it. The only difference I observe is in Stalinism's acknowledgement that the social good derives from individual good and not vice versa, that egalitarianism and freedom are to be desired. -- RichardKulisz

I think it fairly obvious that the differences between Stalinism and Fascism are relatively minor points of emphasis and justification.  I also think this points out the inherent conceptual confusion involved in attempting to lay everything out on a single left-to-right spectrum.  If Fascism is far to the right, and Stalinism is far to the left, and if both amount in practice to pretty much the same thing... then... --JimboWales
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982180038³2keepts³2982257034³2id³21222³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³27³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982257034³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
----
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought SocialisM was a system of government.  The traditional (academic) definition of 'socialism' has it that the state ought to own all the means of production.  (Ordinary folks in the UnitedStates think this is what 'communism' means, but 'communism' refers to the final, ideal socialist state, one of AnarchY, in which the state has withered away and SocialEquality, or whatever you'd like to call it has been achieved.  Remember, it used to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  'Socialist' was not a euphemism.)  The word expressing total economic equality, I suppose, is SocialEquality or EqualityOfOutcome (as opposed to EqualityOfOpportunity).  The word for the view that we ought to achieve SocialEquality is EgalitarianisM. -- LarrySanger
----
Well, ok, strictly speaking socialism doesn't refer to the equality but to whatever system that equality exists within.  State control, though, is not at all implied.  Conversely, government control doesn't imply socialism - consider most traditional fascists and tyrannies.

----
Anarchists have had no qualms describing themselves as socialists. As for academics ... standard class warfare analysis has workers associated with AnarchisM, the rich with FascisM and the academics with StalinisM. This shows that the academic definition is wrong and also shows why it would be so wrong. Finally, the ''soviets'' in the Union of Soviets were originally conceived as anarchic. They didn't stay that way for long under the Bolsheviks but that's another matter.

In order to define right versus left or socialist versus anything, one must discern a meaningful difference betwee Fascism and Stalinism. Authoritarianism and justice are ''not'' it. The only difference I observe is in Stalinism's acknowledgement that the social good derives from individual good and not vice versa, that egalitarianism and freedom are to be desired. -- RichardKulisz

I think it fairly obvious that the differences between Stalinism and Fascism are relatively minor points of emphasis and justification.  I also think this points out the inherent conceptual confusion involved in attempting to lay everything out on a single left-to-right spectrum.  If Fascism is far to the right, and Stalinism is far to the left, and if both amount in practice to pretty much the same thing... then... --JimboWales

Stalinism and Fascism have a lot of similarities thanks to both being totalitarian governments, but that doesn't mean one should overlook their differences.  Stalinists promised a worker's utopia and go on the left, Fascists promised a good police state and go on the right.  Other axes are usually added to reflect their commonalities, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the coordinate difference on the one we have!  If you do, you shouldn't expect to get a meaningfully discerning system. -- JoshuaGrosse
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2982180038³2keepts³2982271333³2id³21076³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³28