Communism

[Ostroeuropa]

That certainly isn't the original principle. Source that claim. Thats the expanded definition as it currently stands, something i'm arguing should be (And in fact, has been) done for communism.

Sure.

The term socialism is attributed to Pierre Leroux,[80] and to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud; and in Britain to Robert Owen in 1827, father of the cooperative movement.[81][82] Socialist models and ideas espousing common or public ownership have existed since antiquity. Mazdak, a Persian communal proto-socialist,[83] instituted communal possessions and advocated the public good. And it has been claimed, though controversially, that there were elements of socialist thought in the politics of classical Greek philosophers Plato[84] and Aristotle.[85]

If you expand a definition then yes, ofcourse more people are going to fall into it.
You still havn't demonstrated it is the original principle of socialism.
If we redefine socialism to mean monarchism, then point out "Monarchs have existed before socialism as a word did." then it wouldn't lend ANY credence to that being the original definition now would it.
So all you've done here is make white noise that hasn't answered the question posed to you. (Something you've done a lot here by the way.)
Can you demonstrate that the original meaning of socialism is what you claim it to be.

[Conscentia]

why so many nos please read the manifesto dont use real world experianse.

In English, that would be ...?

[Conscentia]

Sure.

If you expand a definition then yes, ofcourse more people are going to fall into it.
You still havn't demonstrated it is the original principle of socialism.
If we redefine socialism to mean monarchism, then point out "Monarchs have existed before socialism as a word did." then it wouldn't lend ANY credence to that being the original definition now would it.
So all you've done here is make white noise that hasn't answered the question posed to you. (Something you've done a lot here by the way.)
Can you demonstrate that the original meaning of socialism is what you claim it to be.

socialist (n.)
1827, from French socialiste, in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of French socialism. The word begins to be used in French in the modern sense c.1835.

[Mavorpen]

If you expand a definition then yes, ofcourse more people are going to fall into it.
You still havn't demonstrated it is the original principle of socialism.
If we redefine socialism to mean monarchism, then point out "Monarchs have existed before socialism as a word did." then it wouldn't lend ANY credence to that being the original definition now would it.

When was socialism defined?

[Ostroeuropa]

why so many nos please read the manifesto dont use real world experianse.

In English, that would be ...?

Why have so many people voted against communism in this poll, have they not read our glorious manifesto, why are they basing it on real world events instead of our book?

[Ostroeuropa]

If you expand a definition then yes, ofcourse more people are going to fall into it.
You still havn't demonstrated it is the original principle of socialism.
If we redefine socialism to mean monarchism, then point out "Monarchs have existed before socialism as a word did." then it wouldn't lend ANY credence to that being the original definition now would it.
So all you've done here is make white noise that hasn't answered the question posed to you. (Something you've done a lot here by the way.)
Can you demonstrate that the original meaning of socialism is what you claim it to be.

socialist (n.)
1827, from French socialiste, in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of French socialism. The word begins to be used in French in the modern sense c.1835.

Thats my point.
Comte de saint-simon advocated government by ruling intelligentsia, and was opposed to democracy (It lets the liberals steal common property). Does that mean socialism is undemocratic, and any democratic socialisms aren't real socialisms?

If you expand a definition then yes, ofcourse more people are going to fall into it.
You still havn't demonstrated it is the original principle of socialism.
If we redefine socialism to mean monarchism, then point out "Monarchs have existed before socialism as a word did." then it wouldn't lend ANY credence to that being the original definition now would it.

When was socialism defined?

Addressed.

[Mavorpen]

Addressed.

No, it wasn't. You quoted Wikipedia concerning Utopian socialism. You never told me when socialism was defined as a term nor what it was defined as.

[Ostroeuropa]

Addressed.

No, it wasn't. You quoted Wikipedia concerning Utopian socialism. You never told me when socialism was defined as a term nor what it was defined as.

It's addressed in that exact post (read the quoted posts.)

[Conscentia]

Thats my point.
Comte de saint-simon advocated government by ruling intelligentsia, and was opposed to democracy. Does that mean socialism is undemocratic?

The etymology is non-specific, it doesn't refer to which of Saint-Simon's teachings is relevant to the definition.
Also, "The word begins to be used in French in the modern sense c.1835." - that's during Comte's lifetime.

Additionally, French word =/= English word. The definition of the French word is irrelevant, and unfortunately no date is provided for when the word was introduced into English.

[Ostroeuropa]

Thats my point.
Comte de saint-simon advocated government by ruling intelligentsia, and was opposed to democracy. Does that mean socialism is undemocratic?

The etymology is non-specific, it doesn't refer to which of Saint-Simon's teachings is relevant to the definition.
Also, "The word begins to be used in French in the modern sense c.1835." - that's during Comte's lifetime.

Additionally, French word =/= English word. The definition of the French word is irrelevant, and unfortunately no date is provided for when the word was introduced into English.

When something says "the teachings" and is about politics and doesn't specify, it's pretty clear what it means imo.
And in that case, which teachings? (All are pretty insane by modern standards. None make reference to what you previously claimed the definition to be.)
So we're fine with stalinism being communism but only in russian translations then.
This seems incredibly dubious and underhanded of you to try, i'm proud.
But working on that, we're back to robert owen and HIS teachings. (If you must have english definitions.)

I'm trying to understand what your posistion is and giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's consistent.
I simply don't see how one can hold what seems to be such a double-standard with regard to say, democratic liberal socialism being socialism, but stalinism not being communism.
Both are based upon the original (or by-proxy based on the original) and are considered by adherents to be part of that school of thought. Both deviate from some of the goals and methods.

[Conscentia]

The etymology is non-specific, it doesn't refer to which of Saint-Simon's teachings is relevant to the definition.
Also, "The word begins to be used in French in the modern sense c.1835." - that's during Comte's lifetime.

Additionally, French word =/= English word. The definition of the French word is irrelevant, and unfortunately no date is provided for when the word was introduced into English.

When something says "the teachings" and is about politics and doesn't specify, it's pretty clear what it means imo.
And in that case, which teachings? (All are pretty insane by modern standards. None make reference to what you previously claimed the definition to be.)
So we're fine with stalinism being communism but only in russian translations then.
This seems incredibly dubious and underhanded of you to try, i'm proud.
But working on that, we're back to robert owen and HIS teachings. (If you must have english definitions.)

My point about French was that loanwords do not necessarily retain the original meaning.

[Ostroeuropa]

When something says "the teachings" and is about politics and doesn't specify, it's pretty clear what it means imo.
And in that case, which teachings? (All are pretty insane by modern standards. None make reference to what you previously claimed the definition to be.)
So we're fine with stalinism being communism but only in russian translations then.
This seems incredibly dubious and underhanded of you to try, i'm proud.
But working on that, we're back to robert owen and HIS teachings. (If you must have english definitions.)

My point about French was that loanwords do not necessarily retain the original meaning.

Then we're back to robert owen. (History of socialism in great britain.) or some American. (the rest of the english speaking world being colonies of GB at the time.)

[Mavorpen]

But working on that, we're back to robert owen and HIS teachings. (If you must have english definitions.)

...Robert Owens had somewhat different idea of socialism than Henri de Saint-Simon.

[Conscentia]

So many edits...

[...]
I'm trying to understand what your posistion is and giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's consistent.
I simply don't see how one can hold what seems to be such a double-standard with regard to say, democratic liberal socialism being socialism, but stalinism not being communism.
Both are based upon the original (or by-proxy based on the original) and are considered by adherents to be part of that school of thought. Both deviate from some of the goals and methods.

Stalinism is based on Stalin's policies during his rule - totalitarianism, state ownership, "socialism in one country". It was coined by followers of his cult of personality.
He did not rule over a communist commune.

[Ostroeuropa]

But working on that, we're back to robert owen and HIS teachings. (If you must have english definitions.)

...Robert Owens had somewhat different idea of socialism than Henri de Saint-Simon.

And yet they are both socialism. Funny isn't it.

[Conscentia]

...Robert Owens had somewhat different idea of socialism than Henri de Saint-Simon.

And yet they are both socialism. Funny isn't it.

After 1835, yes. By then the modern definition existed. I imagine Saint-Simon would have been using it.

[Ostroeuropa]

So many edits...

[...]
I'm trying to understand what your posistion is and giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's consistent.
I simply don't see how one can hold what seems to be such a double-standard with regard to say, democratic liberal socialism being socialism, but stalinism not being communism.
Both are based upon the original (or by-proxy based on the original) and are considered by adherents to be part of that school of thought. Both deviate from some of the goals and methods.

Stalinism is based on Stalin's policies during his rule - totalitarianism, state ownership, "socialism in one country". It was coined by followers of his cult of personality.
He did not rule over a communist commune.

It's considered a branch of marxist-leninism, which is a branch of marxism, which is a type of communism.

[Cameroi]

in principal, marxism holds a higher moral ground then capitalism. in practice, all ideologies share the simple reality that the sole objective achieved by their existence is desensitization to the real devastation caused by aggressiveness, and the cultural dominance of aggressiveness, regardless of its excuse. i have neither more nor less, against either or any. (other then the horrors of run away fascism, which capitalist austerity is trending towards)

right now, our world is menaced by out of control fanatical capitolism, to the point of fascist, "ideology". people in many places, are being starved out, and even directly murdered, by military action for its (corporate "capitalism") sake. marxism isn't more then a very partial and imperfect attempt to address the problem. that doesn't make capitalism itself any less the problem just because marxism doesn't adequately address it.

the problem is one of cultural blindness and extremes. the problem is that no ideology can address the problem. not because of any inheirent flaws of marixisms, though some do exist, but simply because its real roots, and solutions, lie outside of the context of ideology entirely.

[Ostroeuropa]

And yet they are both socialism. Funny isn't it.

After 1835, yes. By then the modern definition existed.

So long as we're going by modern definitions:

Communism
Noun
A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and...

What about this ISN'T applicable to stalinism?

It seems to me it applies ENTIRELY and argues what I have been all along.
Derivation, advocation of the main principle, and acceptance of goals is all that is required. Nothing about method or practice.

[Conscentia]

So many edits...

Stalinism is based on Stalin's policies during his rule - totalitarianism, state ownership, "socialism in one country". It was coined by followers of his cult of personality.
He did not rule over a communist commune.

It's considered a branch of marxist-leninism, which is a branch of marxism, which is a type of communism.

It's a deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

[Varijnland]

Nope, because I can think rationaly and realistically.

[Conscentia]

After 1835, yes. By then the modern definition existed.

So long as we're going by modern definitions:

Noun
A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and...

What about this ISN'T applicable to stalinism?

It seems to me it applies ENTIRELY.

Clearly that dictionary of thine is wrong, because socialism is a loan word from French which obtained it's modern definition in 1835. It's not derived from Marx.

[Mavorpen]

...Robert Owens had somewhat different idea of socialism than Henri de Saint-Simon.

And yet they are both socialism. Funny isn't it.

Which proves my point. Socialism was coined by Henri de Saint-Simon. It was from then on originally used to refer to the teachings of Utopian socialists (a term coined by Marx and Engles). Despite the fact that they held widely varying political and economic views, they were all considered socialist. Why? They had common threads between them (i.e. public ownership of the means of production, abolition of private property, etc.).

[Ostroeuropa]

Or indeed these definitions.

com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.


2 and 3 are entirely in line with stalinism.
I see nothing in 1 which is against stalinism.

[Ostroeuropa]

So long as we're going by modern definitions:

Noun
A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and...

What about this ISN'T applicable to stalinism?

It seems to me it applies ENTIRELY.

Clearly that dictionary of yours is wrong, because socialism is a loan word from French which obtained it's modern definition in 1835. It's not derived from Marx.

(Edited for clarity.)

You're screwed either way.
If it's original definitions you want, you're screwed and stuck arguing for either tyrannical intelligentsia's or state control of property for socialism.
If it's modern definitions, you're screwed and stuck with stalinism most definately qualifying as communist.