"The government controls around 35% of the total value of publicly listed companies on the Oslo stock exchange, with five of its largest seven listed firms partially owned by the state".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...stained_growth

They like to call it 'state capitalism' but if we use dictionary definitions it's straight up socialism. State control of the means of production. Not all of them, but a third.

That's not capitalist with some social services thrown in to me.

That was predictable. Would love to hear how capitalist dictators work. I mean, dictators work naturally with socialism, given the state already controls the markets. But with capitalism... how will he get the public to give up their assets?

This is quite a good example.

Generally because giving dictionaries that kind of power is dangerous, and to a large degree exactly the kind of thing Orwell warned against.

You don't think there can be private ownership of the means of production in a dictatorship ?

I suggest you examine your example of how the Nazi economy functioned and get back to us.

Or look at modern day China or Russia for examples.

But my point is that politicians always use language in a vague way to get people to follow them. Kind of like what you're doing here.

It's interesting.

Generally called 'social-democratic', the 'Nordic model' or more loosely the 'mixed economy'. A fairly large state sector and high welfare spend but with a free-market background.

We just covered this in another thread. Hitler hated private ownership as shown in this quote (which was posted right before that thread was closed btw)

Quote from Hitler:
The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.


Modern day China and Russia are just offshoots of communism. Once the commies took power, they never gave it up (esp in China). They just use private business, as Hitler did, for their own gain. China ostensibly has an open market but CEOs just keep on dissappearing...

So much so that you might even be ok with me using the word socialism

Bare in mind that Bernie and Scandinavia have to do things for today as well as having a general aim. I have more freedom in that regard but even so, for example, while I think we need to nationalise a lot I wouldn't argue for doing it all immediately.

Dictionaries are just reference points for meaning. You think there's danger in that??

Okay, have it your way.

How about China, USSR or the example of Portugal ?

It's pretty clear at this point that you're regurgitating things you've learned on right wing 'think tank' type platforms. You state one of the classic talking points and then ignore valid criticism and circle back and deflect.

You're getting attention for now but you'll bore everyone soon enough.

Also It's Hot in Vegas will be kind of jelly.

China and Russia are bad examples for you to use. Look up.

Portugal might be the only example of corporatism turning into a dicatorship. It's still opposed to classical liberalism which is my philosophy.

Give me an example of a 'capitalist' country. Since you don't accept the dictionary definitions unless they help your case.

There is a huge benefit in agreeing what words mean, especially in a non-confrontational manner. You for example know (by your own words) that socialism is not used uniformly, so you could choose to accept this and the debate would go poof.

There is however an enormous danger in accepting authority over what words mean. Language must be allowed to develop freely over time. Dictionaries should be continuously updated references that people can use to find their way or use a language effectively, not authority over what language is allowed to be.

Colonel Stok of the KGB to the Unnamed British Agent in one of Len Deighton's Sixties novels:- 'Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is exactly the reverse.' (He then admits, 'We arrested a man for telling that joke last week.')

Pretty much all developed countries and many developing ones are underpinned by capitalist free market economies. Even China and Vietnam have capitalist economies. Vietnam is probably the most capitalistic country on earth given:

-very low taxes (10%)
-easy to open a business (almost no licenses needed)
-relatively low regulation or trademark laws

Most people open up shop in their own home, and almost everyone is pro capitalism (like 96% according to one poll I saw). This is likely because they already lived through the poverty of marxist socialism in the 1970s and 80s.

The difference with China and Vietnam compared to the developed world economies is the political structure: both have single party governments that maintain total control and can enforce new laws at any moment.

That's a bit disengenuous. There was clear confusion in the last thread over the meaning of the word, and it wasn't from me.


Some words have emotional and political power behind them and we must recognize the capacity for "spin." This is arguably what Orwell was concerned with. Remember in 1984, white is black, black is white. Words lose their meaning and power becomes hard to notice if you don't pull back the veil. Socialism strikes me as one of those words which has been used to seduce the masses throughout history for great evils (still is in venezuela).

Look at our last thread about fascism. I don't think anyone, still, understands what fascism is, yet most people are still convinced Hitler was a fascist. All most people know is "fascism bad." But historically fascism and socialism are close cousins.

Not really, you are after all warning against a country falling into dystopia if we accept that people call themselves socialists. Which I think is a little pessimistic.

Sure, you can spin on that. But it doesn't take much of a history student to see the term "free market" being used in the same way. "We must protect the free market" was a go-to phrase for not explaining policy properly in the '80s and '90s.

There is no simple cure for such uses of language. If a population is ripe for being fooled by a clever demagogue or populist, nobody is going to solve that problem by arguing over definitions. Your problem is elsewhere.

Generally I disagree. Precision of language is the same thing as precision of thought. If one goes, the other goes.

If one political term has different meanings to different people, it's not a term worth using unless it's for obfuscating.

So China ?

Except for when it's not ?

Got it.

I don't think it matters if your premise is that the population will be easily fooled. The popular demagogue will beat the one arguing definitions.

As for this point: You've used "capitalist" to describe wildly varying regimes and economical realities in this thread. Doesn't that fall under the same criticism?

Part of my premise you've left out is that by obfuscating the meaning of words over time it makes the people more easily fooled. So, no, clear meanings are a way of preventing that.


Wildly?

So far nobody has been confused about the term capitalism. It's
pretty clear what we mean by that.

The only confusion there is that some may think it's a governmental system when it's really an economic system.

You may not understand that capitalism is an economic system not a governmental system. China is when communism and capitalism intersect - a super state with unlimited growth and 0 checks on its power. It's why CEOs can build massive companies then dissappear when they disobey the state.

It has, but then the word 'democratic' has been similarly used and abused by general no-goods and hazards-to-traffic.

That's because he was one. German National Socialism was an authoritarian nationalist movement with a 'strongman' leader, patterned after Mussolini's success in Italy.

Shorter OED, Vol.I, p.919:- 'Fascist... (A) n. A member of a body of Italian nationalists, which was organised in 1919 to oppose Communism in Italy and controlled the country from 1922 to 1943; a member of any similar nationalist and authoritarian organization in another country; (loosely) any person with right-wing authoritarian political views. E20.'

Fascism could be regarded as a parasite on socialism, exploiting the obvious defect of doctrinaire socialism that it requires seizure of absolute state power. But Clem Attlee had nothing at all do with fascism (or Communism), and nor did George Orwell.

(Orwell, 'Why I Write', 1947)

Since that time, the term 'democratic socialism' has been appropriated and manipulated by Communists who don't want to call themselves Communists. So Orwell, like Attlee, would probably now count as a 'social democrat' rather than a 'democratic socialist'.

When capitalism is used to describe Norway, Vietnam and China, it is safe to say that your definition isn't very strict.

So it's almost as if China is a capitalist country that has authoritarian rulers ?

Thanks for explaining that to me. I had no idea that was possible.