= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jayson_Virissimo comments on [POLL] LessWrong census, mindkilling edition [closed, now with results] - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
Exactly zero of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc...) have anything approximating a "centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production". I recommend changing the term (welfare state or Nordic model might be closer to what you were getting at) or the examples (North Korea is probably the only one left that fits the bill).
That question was a very deliberate direct copy of Yvain's survey, so that if this survey has a smaller n and different population (as seems likely) we can say things like "35% of paleocons pick 'conservative' and 65% pick 'libertarian' out of those options and descriptions" and then make inferences to the broader LW population.
The results should be interesting. How long do you plan on keeping it open?
Depends on the flow of responses, but I can't imagine more than a week.
If this is the definition for Socialism, what is your definition of communism? I'm haven't deeply studied politics, but I've used the word Communism to mean centrally planned economy controlled by the government, and Socialism to mean "Capitalism, with government wealth redistribution and/or regulations to steer the economy."
(In accordance with Prase's point - while I don't specifically identify as "Socialist" with a capital S, I lean in that latter definition's direction and use the word socialist to distinguish my beliefs from libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.)
Popular Socialism might mean something else in Scandinavia -- but yes, it still doesn't seem like the majority position there (to go by Wikipedia).
Something like "social democracy" or "welfare liberalism" could be a useful description here.
Self-identified socialists wouldn't probably agree to use definitions from a libertarian website.
I would normally agree, but in this case, the "libertarian website" is actually an encyclopedia article by Robert Heilbroner. Also, the above definition seems to be in agreement with alternative sources.
Oxford Dictionaries:
Merriam-Webster:
New Advent:
As a Norwegian, I was happy to pick that option. I think of myself as roughly socialist.
It doesn't mean "centrally planned economy" to me.
You are at liberty to use the word any way you wish, but dictionaries, encyclopedias, and economics textbooks seem to mean something different by it.
Dictionaries, encyclopedias and economics textbooks in which countries?
I suppose we could claim the norwegian word "sosialist" doesn't quite map to the english word "socialist", though.
Sounds plausible.
I retract the "libertarian website" part *. A reformulated version of my remark is: The respondents who identified themselves as socialists wouldn't probably agree with Heilbroner's definition of socialism. I was addressing futility of arguing over definitions rather than a possible libertarian bias.
*) My mistake was caused by the title Library of Economics and Liberty and the fact that the site is maintained by the Liberty Fund, whose description of themselves sounds typically libertarian.
The Oxford Dictionary definition you supply is the one I generally see in use:
Every nation-state on Earth has a government that regulates the means of production, distribution, and exchange. That doesn't seem like a very useful definition.