Political Definitions

nemafakei · May 18, 2004

It seems that a lot of political definitions are being thrown around without thought about their actual meanings. Now, I am

Dude_Doc · May 18, 2004

Add consumerism as a religion to Globalism ;) ...

Caid Ivik · May 18, 2004

How can we write the greek letters?

Wolf · May 18, 2004

Perhaps this should become a sticky topic as well?

Anathema · May 19, 2004

Republic

res publica: public matters (more or less)

A term invented by the Romans to distingish their new, kingless state from the old monarchy. A republic is therefore any state that is not a monarchy.

lowzeewee · May 19, 2004

Yes

Meaning:No

No

Meaning:Yes

nemafakei · May 21, 2004

I've changed the font so most to all should be able to read the extended greek characters. To type in simple greek, edit your keyboard properties and add the Greek layout. To type extended Greek (breathings, accents and all), type in arcane codes or email me and I'll send you a document template (For MS Word) in which you can type the letters.

Edric O · May 21, 2004

Capitalism
En capital
Belief in the private ownership of all resources as opposed to state or public ownership.

While I agree that I shouldn't be the one to define capitalism, I would like to point out that by the above definition, you could classify feudalism as a form of "capitalism". You could even classify socialism as a form of "capitalism", since private property still exists under socialism.

Private property alone is not enough to define capitalism, just like communal property alone is not enough to define communism.

In other words, while communal property is certainly a basic tenet of communism, it is by no means the only tenet. The same applies to capitalism and private property.

Wolf · May 21, 2004

Yes, I have to agree with Edric. In addition, the "private ownership of all resources" leaves little room for societies in which there are public goods, such as highways, for example, in the United States. By that definition, the US would not be capitalist. So, what is the definition of capitalism? The belief that there should be as little as possible restrictions in trade? Or is that simply conservative capitalism?

Edric O · May 21, 2004

Well, this is the definition I use for capitalism:

Capitalism is the economic system based on wage labour in the context of a market economy, and in which the majority of the means of production are privately owned.

emprworm · May 22, 2004

this is my definition of communism:

"Communism

En community

Belief in the pooling of all resources as opposed to private property."

nemafakei · May 22, 2004

Yes, I was not sure about those.

How about if the capitalist define capitalism and the communist define communism. Remember, I'm looking for an essential criterion rather than a description of the properties.

Edric O · May 22, 2004

Communism - a democratic system of communal property, which abolishes private property and the state, and which is run according to the principle "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs".

I think that's concise enough.

Edric O · May 22, 2004

By the way, I've just noticed that in all the excitement, we seem to have left out socialism from the list.

Socialism - an economic system based on public property over the means of production, in the context of a democratic planned economy.

Alternate definition: a system in which the workers own and control the company they work at, while the people as a whole control the economy through democratic means.

Caid Ivik · May 22, 2004

Feudalism - (lat feudum, soil) socio-economical structure, where humans are strictly bound to the soil they were born on, or which was given to them, typical for ancient Roman Empire and medieval states, legislatively most powerful around 16th and 18th century, especially in Russia, Germany and Hungary; fade of F. came with obligatory education and industrialization of towns

emprworm · May 22, 2004

i would never define communism as a democratic system. i think the actual definition of it is better.

Edric O · May 23, 2004

Well then, I'm sorry to bring this to you, but communism IS a democratic system. How else can you run a society with no private property and no state, if not through direct democracy? Private property and the state are the two means by which people can oppress each other. Remove them, and democracy becomes the ONLY possible way of taking decisions.

Besides, if all people are to be equal, that means they must be equal in political power as well.

Anathema · May 23, 2004

Caid's definition of feudalism is better then Nema's. Also, in early feudal Europe most land loaned out to vassals was returned when the vassal died, not passed on to children. Stripped to it's bare essence, feudalism could be defined like this:

System in where everything revolves around soil and loyalty. The people at the top ensure themselves of the loyalty of soldiers by giving them fiefs. The inhabitants of these fiefs, bound to the land, swear loyalty to their immediate lord for protection.

Dude_Doc · May 23, 2004

How else can you run a society with no private property and no state, if not through direct democracy?

No state: anarchy. That's how the world is going to work for a while.

Edric O · May 23, 2004

That depends on how you define "anarchy". The "anarchy" that the Anarchists want is very similar to communism (Anarchists and Communists have very similar goals, in fact, but extremely different ways of achieving them - while Communists wish to achieve communism as the result of a process that may take hundreds of years, Anarchists want to achieve something similar to communism right now, and they believe this can be done by simply overthrowing the current system and the governments that keep it running... a belief that Communists generally find to be utterly naive).

However, when most people talk about "anarchy", they refer to a situation of chaos, with no form of social organization to speak of. Obviously, nobody wants that. Or at least nobody in his right mind.

Caid Ivik · May 23, 2004

Anarchism today isn't like communism. If anarchists enter politics, they are looked upon as pure destructive element, what is in fact true. They want no authorities, no law, excluding the natural law, of course. So today they are more just a social movement, which attacks consumerist culture, manipulative institutes and such. However, they never followed some hegelian evolution logic, like marxist do so, so you can't say they have some "goal".

nemafakei · May 23, 2004

"Caid's definition of feudalism is better then Nema's."

I was deliberately avoiding anchoring the definitons historically. I'll give it some more thought, though.

Edric O · May 24, 2004

It would be a shame to let such a good topic fade away...

Nema, I see you've edited your opening post, but why haven't you changed your definitions for capitalism and communism? We've already found much better ones, and your old definitions are flawed - because they are far too inclusive.

Your definition for socialism is also rather vague and ambiguous. What was wrong with the definition I gave you, pray tell? I don't wish to brag, but I think I can say that I know more about socialism and communism than most people here - I am a communist, after all.

And finally, your definition of marxism is completely off. Marxism is a political ideology (like liberalism or conservativism), not a socio-economic system! (like communism, socialism or capitalism)

Caid Ivik · May 24, 2004

Marxism is an ideology of one man, Karl Marx, and as it is a totalitarian system, it affects not only political, but also other socio-economical spheres.

Edric O · May 24, 2004

So you've been taking lessons in idiocy from Emprworm, eh? Seriously, Caid, how can you so blatantly disprove historical fact? For one thing, marxism was NEVER the ideology of one man, not even in the very beginning. Karl Marx worked closely with his good friend Friedrich Engels. And later on, as the movement grew, marxism became the ideology of millions of people - hundreds of whom made significant contributions to it. Here, I'll even give you a short list of the most important marxist thinkers: