Humanities desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 10

Alternatives to the capitalism-socialism scale in political theory

Having been thinking about political labels and theory for the past few months I've become curious to know if there are formulations aside from the sliding scale of capitalism and socialism. For example, I've been wondering if there is such a thing as non-socialist command economies whether in practice or in theory. This all comes down to an observed tendency to conceive of totalitarianism being socialist in nature. Perhaps the way in which these things are viewed is skewed. Does anyone know of alternative perspectives, definitions, or theories? — Melab±1 ☎ 05:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been totalitarian governments throughout history, long before Karl Marx. One interesting tidbit is that the Code of Hammurabi was largely a list of prices to be charged for various goods and services. Thus, it's one of the earliest known attempts at price controls.

I personally think the democratic-totalitarian continuum is more important than the economic system, and that trading with non-democratic nations is a mistake, allowing them to gain control of the world economy, and then grow their militaries and threaten democracy worldwide. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just think of China today, it has a Communist government yet remains as one of the greatest financial powers in the modern world. 121.90.15.51 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Remain" ? They recently became a great financial power, because all the democracies of the world decided to trade with them. StuRat (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a mistake. A democracy can be totalitarian depending on the technology and the system in place. — Melab±1 ☎ 19:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's got to be one or the other. Or are you talking about governments which claim to be democratic, but aren't, like the DPRK ? StuRat (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good test for democracy is whether the people have the power to replace their leader peacefully (i.e. via the ballot box rather than by assassination or violent revolution). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think ochlocracy. — Melab±1 ☎ 02:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The average Ochlocracy tends not to sustain over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's so great about wikipedia, term limits on admins and 1/3 of admins are appointed by lottery from established users. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some alternative perspectives may be suggested by out article Political spectrum. The term "Economic spectrum" might seem closer to the OP's interest, but that redirects to (in my judgement) a less relevant article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.83.178 (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two matters that don't necessarily directly correlate with private, versus public means of production are (1) social regulation of things like sex, obscene speech and other mores, and (2) the harshness of punishments in response to crimes, such as three-strike laws that put people away for life for victimless crimes, versus the "sentence" of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway who is being rewarded with a three-room suite and court-hired chess and hockey-playing companions for killing 77 people. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He messed up by only getting 77. Had he hit the century mark, they might have given him a new car. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, just a question: the problem with democracy is that it assumes that the decisions are made by the people, but if you don't know the facts you can't make a decision -- and for anything really important, it's classified and not even Congress is entitled to know much about it. So it seems kind of meaningless, a ritual validation of things not understood. I'm not talking just about the modern NSA - as pointed out in a recent feature film, even Lincoln arranged to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution based on total secrecy about the South's willingness to negotiate.^[1] Now perhaps this is just an indication that democracy in a less than fully open society is not fully pure - commingled with totalitarianism, but not indistinguishable from it - but still, sometimes you look from one kind of regime to another and wonder how big the difference is really, all PR aside. Wnt (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once humans become pure, democracy will follow suit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This addresses the premises on which you base your question more than the question itself, but I'd say that the most basic definition of socialism is "control of the means of production by the workers". By this definition, the Soviet Union and other "actually existing socialist" countries are indistinguishable from "control of the means of productions by people with money", or capitalism. These countries, despite implementing policies in workers' interests such as housing or pensions or healthcare, did not offer the workers actual control over the means of production.

So, this definition of capitalism allows capitalism to come in many forms. Fascism or monopoly are "non-socialist command economies". Similarly, this definition of socialism allows socialism to come in many forms. Workers can have control over the means of production by interacting with a state, or they can control directly in without one.

And about your observed tendency, I think it is important to clarify that communism is full-blown democracy. Every decision, from social to economic policy, is collectively decided by those who will be affected, not a higher power. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 06:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma is correct that monopolism and fascism are command economies. I am unaware of any sort of fascism that is not actually also socialist, they just seem to have militarist, rather than Labourite trappings. As for monopolism, examples are grants by monarchs for exclusive trade rights to certain people for certain bailiwicks, like the perpetual right of Columbus and his heirs to a cut of all transatlantic trade, granted by the Spanish crown. See Columbus's claim as Admiral of the Ocean Sea and the charters of the various American and West Indian colonies. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is fascism socialist? — Melab±1 ☎ 23:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Melab-1, it is both socialist in origin ( Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but applied them to what it saw as the more significant conflict between nations and races rather than to class conflict, and focused on ending the divisions between classes within the nation.Fsacism) and in practice through state control of corporations, indirectly or outright. If you are on the Left it depends on how you want to define socialist, since "fascist" is a favorite Marxist curse word. But the bottom line is that it is statist, and supposedly for the benefit of the people or Volk, or what have you. Look at the recent occupation by the Venezuelan military of the private Daka electronics chain at president ~~Hugo Chavez's~~ Maduro's command: "This is for the good of the nation," "Leave nothing on the shelves, nothing in the warehouses … Let nothing remain in stock!" Read the original German here: Girish Gupta, USAToday, Nov 9, 2013. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean authoritarian/totaltiarian governments are necessarily socialist, too? And wouldn't it be safe to say that "statist" and "socialist" are equally curse words for some? — Melab±1 ☎ 15:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Melab-1: On the other side of the ideological spectrum, I would recommend Trotsky's writings on the relation between fascism and actual socialism. As for your second question, one only has to look at much of the English-speaking world (see German, Spanish for comparisons), though it appears to be changing for the better. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 00:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism was invented as a conservative reaction against the Soviet Union in the 1920s. Its adherents support cooperation between the state and the owners of the means of production. Socialists support democratic control of the means of production by workers. These beliefs are totally irreconcilable. Fascism requires capitalism. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 01:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 21:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of communist states that are democratic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A communist state is actually an oxymoron. But considering that you have other misconceptions about communism, I will suggest that you look over [2] to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and I will also suppose that you meant to refer to the states that call themselves communist, such as the Soviet Union.

These countries were not actually communist. The extent to which they were socialist is still hotly debated by the left, though I personally don't believe that they were socialist. I don't mean to throw these countries and their revolutions under the bus, but the story behind my opinion on the matter isn't relevant right now.

Anyway, Chomsky makes good points about the socialism in "socialist" states in this. But to directly answer your question, no, I don't have any examples. Communism is such a hypothetical that we cannot even predict anything with certainty in a hypothetical without coming up with a hypothetical. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 03:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By definition it's full-blown democracy. If it's not completely democratic, it's not full-blown communism, since any government at all means that a state hasn't reached what Marx meant of true communism. 2001:18E8:2:1020:114D:7B9F:9BE6:F393 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marx doesn't get to define communism. Just marxism. His pigsfly predictions about the withering of the state are his own aberrations, and have nothing to do with communal existence. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers which conquered the most

I am trying to make a list of rulers/kings/caliphs etc which conquered the most area in their life time. In particular I am interested in comparing the conquests of Umar, Napolean and Genghis Khan. Where can I find such a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.134.157 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to add Alexander the Great to the list. StuRat (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Napoleon's empire fell apart years before he died... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tipu Sultan? 49.226.6.254 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A subjective list can be found at "Top 10 most successful empire-builders" and a good deal of argument thereafter; the author's inclusion of George Washington at No.9 seems to have been most controversial. Here at Wikipedia, we have List of pre-modern great powers which may help. Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regard Genghis Khan

As rather an over-rated man.

What, after all, could be easier

Than conquering from the Pacific to Silesia?

(Bentley)

Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that the armies of Genghis Khan made it any further west than about Chernihiv during his lifetime. The First Mongol invasion of Poland was in 1240, while Genghis Khan died in 1227... AnonMoos (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a ruler by conventional semantics, but Jesus Christ - during his lifetime :o) - has established an empire of 2.2 billion followers. Arguably, the number of cultural Christians is significantly higher. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really correct. Jesus had a small following during His life on earth. The disciples of Jesus started the religion, which might have died had it not been for the decision of a Roman Emperor or two to make Christianity the state religion of the Empire. One could easily argue that the Roman Empire is still alive in those 2 billion followers of Christianity, or at least in the 1 billion or so who are Roman Catholic. That, plus the proliferation of Latin throughout the world (filtered through French and English) makes the Roman Empire by far the most successful empire ever. Not from one guy, of course - more like a corporation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that analogy, you could mention a small Neolithic tribe of the Russian Steppe known as the Proto-Indo-European people who domesticated the horse and dominated the few parts of the world they didn't conquer outright. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires may also be useful.184.147.119.205 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the list in the external link above, a few to add to it could perhaps be Timur, Ivan the Terrible, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. --Jayron32 02:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Anglican use of the Ave Maria

The Hail Mary article currently claims that the Ave Maria "is also used by many other groups within the Catholic tradition of Christianity including Anglicans". Coming from this tradition myself, I can't support this statement, and my well-thumbed copy of "Knott's Ritual Notes" contains no reference to the use of this particular prayer. Can anyone provide sources to confirm or (more likely, IMO) deny this statement? Appropriate tags have been added to the article. Tevildo (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to be in the Book of Common Prayer, thus its use would not be part of any regular liturgy in an Anglican church. The Litany of 1544 appears to have excised it. [3] gives some of the history thereof. That said, the musical work "Ave Maria" is commonly sung without regard to its specific meaning, and there appears to be no law forbidding its use in any Anglican church any more than Catholic churches are forbidden to sing Luther's works (they are now found in Catholic hymnals). Collect (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... as a hymn Ave Maria is not at all uncommon in Anglican/Episcopal churches (the Episcopal church that I go to sings it almost every Christmas). Same words... different context. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can confirm that it is used by some churches who follow the Anglo-Catholic tradition within the Church of England and I suspect, elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, usually as part of the Angelus. It didn't take me long to find this CofE parish website with a page devoted to the Angelus and this page from Forward in Faith, an Anglo-Catholic pressure group (mainly against the ordination of women priests). As Collect says, it doesn't appear in the BCP, neither in Common Worship which is the current CofE liturgy that co-exists with the BCP. The use of Roman rather than Anglican liturgy by Anglo-Catholic parishes has been rather contentious, especially as priests swear to "use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon" See Canon C15 at their induction. However, we Anglicans are a tolerant bunch these days and nobody seems to get too stressed about it. In addition to this, as Collect says above, choral versions of Ave Maria are sung by Anglican choirs without too much emphasis being placed on its theological meaning; however, I can think of parishes where it wouldn't be acceptable. Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my comments above, apparently the Angelus appears in a book called Celebrating Common Worship (1992) for the Anglican Society of St. Francis. The book has no official status in the CofE but has a forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury. A secondary source for this is Greenacre, Roger (2013) Maiden, Mother and Queen: Mary in the Anglican Tradition, Canterbury Press, ISBN 978-1-84825-278-3 (p.177). Alansplodge (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me again; specifically it's in Prayers and Praises for Various Occasions, scroll about three quarters of the way down the page to find... "4 MEMORIAL OF THE INCARNATION – ANGELUS". Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent references, Alan, I'll add them to the article. Is it safe to say that the Ave Maria is only used in such churches as part of the Angelus, or is it used elsewhere? I note that the "Forward in Faith" site uses a photo of a set of prayer beads - do followers of this tradition follow the formal Roman Rosary, or are these Anglican prayer beads (Matthew 6:7 notwithstanding)? Tevildo (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Rosary article says that "use of the Roman Catholic Rosary is also fairly common among Anglicans of Anglo-Catholic churchmanship", although I've never seen anybody do so, it sounds plausible. I've never heard of "Anglican prayer beads" which seem to be a recent innovation. I think I would be right in saying that both the Rosary and the Angelus are only in use in a small minority of Church of England parishes. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I'm not seeing where our article says Ave Maria is used by Anglican groups either now or before adding the sources tag. It says Hail Mary is used. This may seem a distinction without a difference to some (even though this question was in English), but I would disagree as I would assume many of the Anglo-Catholicism do actually use Hail Mary or (whatever they want to call it), on other words the English version and not Ave Maria (or whatever they want to call it) i.e. the Latin version. This seems to be borne out by the sources above. Perhaps more importantly, this distinction also helps for the question, since when people say above that Ave Maria is a common hymn without the devotional meaning, I presume they really mean one of the many popular Ave Maria hymns such as the Ave Maria (Bach/Gounod) one, and not a hymn involving Hail Mary (which doesn't seem to be very common). (I can say that after 10? or so years of Roman Catholic sunday school and even more years of church when I was younger after the 1962 and later reforms but before Benedict, I never heard Hail Mary referred to Ave Maria that I recall, in fact I don't know if I ever heard of Ave Maria at all in that time, although I've obviously heard of it elsewhere. So yes, this question was rather confusing to me at first.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, now the CoE is finally reduced to making Hail Mary's? μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Anglican tradition, Latin titles are often retained for prayers and canticles that are always in English. Thus at the Communion Service, we have Sanctus and Benedictus, and at Evensong, Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis, all of which are said and sung in English. So I don't think that you can make a distinction between Ave Maria and Hail Mary, assuming that one will be in Latin and the other in English. BTW, I should have looked at our article on the Angelus which has a section called Anglican usage. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about World War 2: How old were some of the youngest cadets in Canada in the war at the time

How old were some of the youngest cadets in Canada in World War 2 at the time and did any of the candian soldiers lie about their age. Were any of the soldiers of Inuit African-Canadian and first nation descent? How many African-American veterans from world war 2 and Vietnam are alive today? Venustar84 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to some African-Canadian vets: [4] Rmhermen (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least 3,000 First Nations WWII veterans and at least 15 Inuit: [5] Rmhermen (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This pdf answers your first question: "Numerous nineteenth, eighteenth and even seventeenth birthdays were celebrated in uniform." and "Sometimes boys as young as 13 would lie about their age and attempt to enlist in the military." Taknaran (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nice article about "Canadian Boy Soldiers", giving the names of "six servicemen, all under 13 when they enlisted between 1936 and 1939": "Wing Commander W. Taylor, Flt. Sgt. J. C. Baker, Col. W. M. Alton, Maj. R. Hampton, Sgt D. O. Hoskis and Flt. Sgt C. F. Page." The article goes on to state that there were two types of underage soldiers: those who lied about their age, and those who were accepted based on the long tradition of young boy drummers and buglers. To sum up, it claims "some four to five thousand teenage soldiers served during World War II, most over the ages of thirteen and seventeen." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]