we actually might be witnessing the death of socialism!

[republicanism]

Unrelated: Was looking up tax rates in Europe--Herman Cain stole 9-9-9 from Montenegro! Also Slovakia, which is 19-19-19.

Wouldn't that do great on the RNC?

Cain: "America must follow Montenegro's lead!"

*cheering*

[republicanism]

I made an off the cuff very general remark referencing European socialist parties between 1940s and 70s. A remark that was true. Another poster decided to go into more detail and throw out a bunch of names of Prime Ministers and Presidents. In particular Willy Brandt. I said I recognized his name, but didn't recognize which of several people he was. Then people said asked how I could be an expert on European socialist party history. I said that I never claimed I was, I just made a very general and true statement. The issue died and now its been resurrected.

I hope that doesn't sound to arrogant, but I accidentally started laughing when I read this part. Several times.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Dude, I'm not going down this road again with you. I made a general statement that was true. I then added to a range of 40s to 60s(instead of 60s off the cuff) to get rid of any ambiguity.

This is like something from one of those delightful little novels by that nice Mrs Franz Kafka.

Anyways, the point is that your 'general statement' was not actually true, as I believe I demonstrated (with a reasonable degree of success) at the time. I don't entirely understand why you are so keen to insist otherwise when, as you yourself point out, you are not any kind of expert on the subject.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not fair; I have no interest whatsoever in evolutionary psychology.

[Wonkish1]

I made an off the cuff very general remark referencing European socialist parties between 1940s and 70s. A remark that was true. Another poster decided to go into more detail and throw out a bunch of names of Prime Ministers and Presidents. In particular Willy Brandt. I said I recognized his name, but didn't recognize which of several people he was. Then people said asked how I could be an expert on European socialist party history. I said that I never claimed I was, I just made a very general and true statement. The issue died and now its been resurrected.

I hope that doesn't sound to arrogant, but I accidentally started laughing when I read this part. Several times.

In regards to what?

[Wonkish1]

Dude, I'm not going down this road again with you. I made a general statement that was true. I then added to a range of 40s to 60s(instead of 60s off the cuff) to get rid of any ambiguity.

This is like something from one of those delightful little novels by that nice Mrs Franz Kafka.

Anyways, the point is that your 'general statement' was not actually true, as I believe I demonstrated (with a reasonable degree of success) at the time. I don't entirely understand why you are so keen to insist otherwise when, as you yourself point out, you are not any kind of expert on the subject.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not fair; I have no interest whatsoever in evolutionary psychology.

So between the 1940s to 1960s no member of any European socialist, labour, or social democrat party advocated the nationalization of a business or industry let alone succeed in pulling it off? Look from the beginning I made it clear over and over and over again that it was immaterial to the argument. I tried to prevent you from taking it off on this stupid tangent. But yeah there were people all through that period that advocated nationalization of particular businesses. If you say otherwise then its you that shouldn't be taken seriously.

[republicanism]

I made an off the cuff very general remark referencing European socialist parties between 1940s and 70s. A remark that was true. Another poster decided to go into more detail and throw out a bunch of names of Prime Ministers and Presidents. In particular Willy Brandt. I said I recognized his name, but didn't recognize which of several people he was. Then people said asked how I could be an expert on European socialist party history. I said that I never claimed I was, I just made a very general and true statement. The issue died and now its been resurrected.

I hope that doesn't sound to arrogant, but I accidentally started laughing when I read this part. Several times.

In regards to what?

You mentioned several times that you made "true statements" on European Social democracy, and in the next sentence you admit that you didn't know who Brandt was.
So much self-confidence while lacking so much knowledge on an issue - it made me laugh. Sorry if I insulted you.

You know, what made me laugh is really not that you didn't know Brandt.
I, for example, know close to nothing about a much bigger and more important country, India.
But for the very fact that I don't even know who succeed Indira Ghandi as prime minister, you will not see me walking around this forum and making "true statements" on why India is in the situation it is today etc.
I think in such a position of limited knowledge, a little understatement is the right choice.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So between the 1940s to 1960s no member of any European socialist, labour, or social democrat party advocated the nationalization of a business or industry let alone succeed in pulling it off?

Ah, the incredible moving goalposts.

Well, in the 1940s almost all socialist governments nationalised large sections of the economy (though not always for ideological reasons) and almost all socialist parties who were not members of governments advocated doing so. This was at a time when capitalism (however defined) had been discredited by the events of the preceding two decades and when it was also clear that only the state could rebuild the shattered remains of the continent. One big exception was Sweden where there was no great wave of post-war nationalisation despite the country having a socialist government (and it's probably not a total coincidence that there had been no war there either).

But this changed in the 1950s and (especially) in the 1960s as the economy boomed and as socialist parties started to struggle electorally. Revisionism returned to favour for the first time in decades and most social democratic parties adopted the position that the correct socialist thing to do was to use the money generated by (carefully planned and controlled) capitalist growth to fund social programmes and to boost working class living standards. Some, most famously the SPD in 1959, abandoned nationalisation entirely. Others that did not do so in theory (even if they generally debated it) did so in practice; Harold Wilson might have opposed Hugh Gaitskell's attempt to drop nationalisation from Labour's long-term goals, but he did so (in his own words, somewhat paraphrased) that you 'don't remove Genesis from the Bible' not because he actually supported nationalising vast sections of the private sector. Indeed, the 1964-1970 Wilson government followed the revisionist approach fairly strictly and nationalised hardly anything. And the Wilson government was to the left of most of its close contemporaries.

Of course there were always those who continued to believe in nationalisation and in replacing capitalism (rather than seeking to control it), but in most social democratic parties (especially the ones that actually formed governments from time to time) these people were in a distinct minority from the mid 1950s onwards. There was only really a resurgence in that approach after the 'Golden Age of Capitalism' ended in the early 1970s, and even then it never really reached some social democratic parties in a big way (most notably the SPD).

[Wonkish1]

So between the 1940s to 1960s no member of any European socialist, labour, or social democrat party advocated the nationalization of a business or industry let alone succeed in pulling it off?

Ah, the incredible moving goalposts.

Well, in the 1940s almost all socialist governments nationalised large sections of the economy (though not always for ideological reasons) and almost all socialist parties who were not members of governments advocated doing so. This was at a time when capitalism (however defined) had been discredited by the events of the preceding two decades and when it was also clear that only the state could rebuild the shattered remains of the continent. One big exception was Sweden where there was no great wave of post-war nationalisation despite the country having a socialist government (and it's probably not a total coincidence that there had been no war there either).

But this changed in the 1950s and (especially) in the 1960s as the economy boomed and as socialist parties started to struggle electorally. Revisionism returned to favour for the first time in decades and most social democratic parties adopted the position that the correct socialist thing to do was to use the money generated by (carefully planned and controlled) capitalist growth to fund social programmes and to boost working class living standards. Some, most famously the SPD in 1959, abandoned nationalisation entirely. Others that did not do so in theory (even if they generally debated it) did so in practice; Harold Wilson might have opposed Hugh Gaitskell's attempt to drop nationalisation from Labour's long-term goals, but he did so (in his own words, somewhat paraphrased) that you 'don't remove Genesis from the Bible' not because he actually supported nationalising vast sections of the private sector. Indeed, the 1964-1970 Wilson government followed the revisionist approach fairly strictly and nationalised hardly anything. And the Wilson government was to the left of most of its close contemporaries.

Of course there were always those who continued to believe in nationalisation and in replacing capitalism (rather than seeking to control it), but in most social democratic parties (especially the ones that actually formed governments from time to time) these people were in a distinct minority from the mid 1950s onwards. There was only really a resurgence in that approach after the 'Golden Age of Capitalism' ended in the early 1970s, and even then it never really reached some social democratic parties in a big way (most notably the SPD).

No moving goal posts. I made a general statement and you inferred whatever you wanted onto it. Again this discussion is pointless it had nothing to do with what was first brought up. And it has nothing to do with this thread.

You're pissing in the wind. You have no one on the other end(me) that actually cares nor is making any argument to dispute these details with you. My position since the beginning has been to move on because your talking to nobody about something that is irrelevant to the topic.

[afleitch]

Ideologies don't die, they just evolve. Left v Right always remain but they rub off on each other now and then.