hey Veeky Forums, help me settle a debate.
my friend was saying that the country we live in (Canada) is socialist.
I said it wasn't, because the means of production haven't been transferred to social ownership and we still effectively live in a capitalist society.
He said it is because universal healthcare, free college, even public roads and works are socialist. This doesn't make any sense to me. Aren't they just socialistic, if anything? Who's right?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Canada's a communist shithole desu.
You're correct, your friend fell for the "Sweden is a socialist paradise" meme.
Sounds like your friend is talking in contemporary terms, and you're talking in the 19th Century.
You are, intellectually.
But in language, you are not. Language has no inherent meaning, it's all just a game, and socialism can mean what your friend said it means - to him. If two people in the room agree and you don't, for that group, your understanding will be wrong. If it's you, a random marxist academic, and your friend, you will be right.
so what can I call taxation for welfare/public goods? I'm clearly not opposed to dude free shit.
all the time though on kikebook there's bull about the roads being a socialist invention. that just sounds like taxation from the bronze age though
"Socialism" generally means welfare state today. Public roads are objectively socialized and highways are technically a "socialized" invention. Roads themselves obviously predate socialization.
If state funded healthcare, college and roads are socialist then by the same logic state funded police, armies and prisons are socialist.
So yes you're right.
Taxation or welfare has nothing to do with ownership of the means of production and never had, it's a function of government. Just call welfare welfare and leave it at that.
Just because an entire generation of morons wants to change the definition of socialism to fit their narrative does not mean that the definition of socialism is now different than when it was conceived.
The last bit was some truly unnecessary pseudo-intellectual dribble.
Language changes, hate to break it to you. Are you also upset that "libertarian" now means favoring unrestrained capitalism?
this is what I think as well. it's frustrating since we could easily teach people about what it actually is... academically I even love talking about feasible socialism.
but I guess words don't mean anything anymore like says. one of the downsides of meme magic
>my friend was saying that the country we live in (Canada) is socialist.
he's a retard. get better friends.
*tips fedora*
Once again, Constantine doesn't fail to say the dumbest thing in the thread.
maybe, but he's making a good point. in a room full of sanders supporters it really wouldn't fucking matter what the definition of socialism was if I said sanders wasn't a real socialist.
not him, but yeah I am actually. just like how 'republican' is a synonym for bible thumping, pro business, conservative, when its actual definition is one of the most liberal things imo.
it's really not that hard to get people to understand what words mean
its a welfare state.
it has nothing to do with socialism
well, actually, it has, from an historical point of view
They never meant anything except to the speakers. If you cannot relate an unknown language to a known language, you can never decipher it.
It's really not that hard to debate with substance and stop using semantic disputes.
If you want to refer to what "socialism" used to mean, use the term "communism".
>it's really not that hard to get people to understand what words mean
You just have to get them to agree. Or otherwise just pick new words for old things and debate on about the underlying issue, if any.
absolutely not. socialism is actually sort of realistic and desirable. communism isn't desirable at all.
everyone's issue with marxism/welfare just goes to my issues with communism.
"Communism" in common parlance, means exactly what you consider "socialism" to mean
Why would we use communism to refer to socialism when we can call it socialism instead? The question was is Canada a socialist country. It is not. It isn't about semantics. It is about facts.
Good posting there mate, you really improved the discussion with your pedantic bullshit.
yea nah dude
No - this simply isn't true. The majority of people will acknowledge "communism" as authoritarian, and that's really the end of the line.
Factually he is wrong when he says Canada is socialist. Why have definitions at all if we just change them to best suit our argument? If I said Canada is an absolute monarchy I would be indisputably incorrect. But if I said according to my own definition Canada does an absolute monarchy I am correct? Fortunately language does not work like that.
I don't get why you are so autistic about this. You do the same thing with most words you use; pick up an etymological dictionary sometimes. Every sentence you utter will have words that have shifted meaning over time. Accept it and move on.
>the means of production haven't been transferred to social ownership
Sounds like you fell into the trap of letting Marx define socialism for you. He wasn't the first to theorise a system and call it socialism.
You and your friend have differing definitions of socialism, unless you can agree what this word means you'll (probably) never reach agreement on whether or not it has been achieved.
>so what can I call taxation for welfare/public goods?
Call it non-Marxist socialism if you like. Preach a gospel of social good, not social ownership and warn people of the slippery slope to totalitarianism if that's how you feel. At the end of the day its deeds not words that matter.
And remember that not all forms of 'social ownership' are equal. Have a read about the history of the John Lewis partnership for an example of a worker owned enterprise that is compatible with a modern capitalist society. Almost 100 years old and going strong.
I don't think it's autistic to see that this is a pretty big change.
Going from 'socialist' to something that barely resembles socialism?
You'd have a point normally but this is important. It's a misconception about what a very real concept means. Show me an example of something changing that much. The only thing I can think of is fascism = dictatorship but that's not even as far off as socialism = being taxed
holy shit, great post! another thing I was arguing about was the feasibility of marxism. that company really did it right. thank you!
You're right. Obviously.
It's happened with most religious words. Profanity, vulgar, divine, etc. Nowadays only marginally used as they should be, yet describing big things.
It's happening to political words now too, because ideology has been devoured by capitalism and rendered meaningless.
Thanks. Always nice to share examples of people getting things right. Much better than pointing at everything you don't like and calling it shit.
>LGBTQI
goddamnit I swear they add a new letter every year
I'm buttblasted that social conservatives who decided that they're too cool for the GOP call themselves libertarians. Although recently I've been considerably less upset about it since I just gave up and registered as a Democrat.
>Canada
>free college
only for chugs, the rest of us get fucked in the ass by universities selling out to chinks and Saudis
Marxists changed the definition of burgeoise from "city dweller" to "capitalist." You're the last one who should complain about this shit.
Soviet Union was communism, deal with it.
I think 'social ownership' is a very loose concept and can be used to define a number of economic systems, but I don't think Canada is 'socialist' by any conceivable standard. You have private companies, free markets, private banks. Taxing private entitites to provide public goods is just what every government in the world does to a greater or lesser degree.
Nothing is free you cuck
ur mum is
nah those foreigners pay 2x-3x the cost of tuition.
>He said it is because universal healthcare, free college, even public roads and works are socialist.
he;s an idiot like many people
its capitalism with a human face, making meager handouts and continuing on as usual
socialism is the property of the Liberal establishment and your friend has taken the bait.
I think both terms are valid. Neither of you are wrong, you are just both using different definitions. It is perfectly acceptable for a word to have a variety of meanings, which context and/or clarification makes clear.