Terrible definitions...

[vequalsv0plusat]

www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2128

Anarchy - a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.

Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.

[theyellowspot]

for being brief, i think the def for socialism is fairly accurate. why do you think it's bad?

[theyellowspot]

more interesting, is that last sentence about in actuality being dictatorships over the workers by the ruling elite could be applied to almost any form of government, especially american-style "democracy" (sic).

[vequalsv0plusat]

theyellowspot said:

for being brief, i think the def for socialism is fairly accurate. why do you think it's bad?

Primarily because not all systems which are described as socialist involve a government. After all, can't "libertarian socialism" be used as a synonym for "anarchism?" (Or am I just utterly confused?)

[vequalsv0plusat]

theyellowspot said:

more interesting, is that last sentence about in actuality being dictatorships over the workers by the ruling elite could be applied to almost any form of government, especially american-style "democracy" (sic).

That's true if we use the word "dictatorship" in the general, more-often-used sense. This is how they define it:

Dictatorship - a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).

[theyellowspot]

vequalsv0plusat said:

Primarily because not all systems which are described as socialist involve a government. After all, can't "libertarian socialism" be used as a synonym for "anarchism?" (Or am I just utterly confused?)

I don't think you're confused, definitions are dumb ("throw out your dictionaries!"-The Minutemen). I feel really weird defending the CIA, but here goes. Since the place those definitions come from is labelled "Government Type", I would automatically exclude anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, libertarian socialist, etc. from the possible types. Therefore when I see an entry for "socialist" I assume they're referring to non-libertarian socialism. Aren't semantics fun?

[vequalsv0plusat]

theyellowspot said:

I don't think you're confused, definitions are dumb ("throw out your dictionaries!"-The Minutemen). I feel really weird defending the CIA, but here goes. Since the place those definitions come from is labelled "Government Type", I would automatically exclude anarchy, anarchism, anarchist, libertarian socialist, etc. from the possible types. Therefore when I see an entry for "socialist" I assume they're referring to non-libertarian socialism. Aren't semantics fun?

Then how are you explaining the fact that they have "anarchy" on there at all? It's not a type of government, even the way they're defining it.

[theyellowspot]

vequalsv0plusat said:

Then how are you explaining the fact that they have "anarchy" on there at all? It's not a type of government, even the way they're defining it.

well, i certainly wouldn't have put it there. honestly, i'm not sure why it's there at all. i'm kind of curious what country they would apply that too. really, i see your point. unfortunately, outside of libertarian socialism, i still agree with the definition of socialism for most countries/governments that were called socialist, either by themselves or by others. but i suppose that doesn't really change the fact that they are both bad definitions for the ideas that are supposed to be behind those words.

[claptonpond]

I guess they'd apply 'anarchy' to places like Somalia, where it would fit pretty well (or would have - I'm not sure what it's like there now).

Actually, I think it's a pretty accurate definition, as far as common usage of the word anarchy is concerned. As opposed to 'anarchism', which people are more likely to associate with political views.

Personally I prefer to describe myself as a libertarian communist, to avoid confusion.

[workerscommunes]

I can't think of a definition which would confuse people more than libertarian communist. The first word suggests an liberal free-marketeer and the second an authoritarian anti-capitalist. I usually go with anarchist communist or anarcho-communist, occassionally anarcho-socialist if I think people are going to get the wrong idea by the word commnist. I would just define myself as an anarchist but that's too ambigious as it could include the individualist types.

Ah semantics..."Throw out your dictionaries" indeed. Hooray for the Minutemen!

WC.

[claptonpond]

Workers said:

I can't think of a definition which would confuse people more than libertarian communist. The first word suggests an liberal free-marketeer and the second an authoritarian anti-capitalist.

I think that's probably much more the case in the US than anywhere else. In any case, at least the apparent contradiction would get them thinking!

I usually go with anarchist communist or anarcho-communist, occassionally anarcho-socialist if I think people are going to get the wrong idea by the word commnist.

Yeah, that works, although socialist is much less precise than communist.

I would just define myself as an anarchist but that's too ambigious as it could include the individualist types.

Word.

Anarchism's far too broad - all sorts of loons call themselves anarchists.