Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 27

= November 27 =

Alternative definition of socialism
As "socialism" now seems to mean any form of law or government here in the United States, I have to ask if there are alternative definitions of the term that can't be used haphazardly by mudslingers to connect certain things to the ideology in a specious way? One example is centering it on "government owned property" (which in most cases is probably better called "public property") or the absence of a definitive owner and I'm not so sure ownership is the definition it should hinge on. Right now, I'm having to deal with anti-copyright views being cast as "intellectual communism". Most of the people who seem to use "socialism" in the way I describe appear to believe there are only two discrete possible configurations. — Melab±1 &#9742; 01:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is simply a falsification perpetrated by the Manchester bourgeoisie in their own interests that they call ‘socialism’ every interference by the state in free competition... -- Friedrich Engels. I think the fact that people today repeat 130-year-old sound bites gives us a good idea of how much the Manchester bourgeoisie suceeded. I'll see if I can dig up a paper from them that unambiguously defines socialism. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 02:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A current arbcom case mentions the "Manchester mafia" - any relation? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Copyright is a long-established principle, specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. If you define "communism" as the notion that no one is allowed to own anything, then "intellectual communism" (pardon the oxymoron) certainly fits an anti-copyright mentality. And the statement that socialism "seems to mean any form of law or government here in the United States" is not true. Even the staunchest libertarian agrees with the need for laws and government. Socialism was, and still is, the idea of "nationalizing" businesses rather than having private individuals running them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Prove it. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 03:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Constitution allows Congress to pass laws which protect the rights of authors and inventors. Look it up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the constitution explicitly does not formulate that as a natural right, but as a time-limited right to benefit society via progress in science and the useful arts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." That seems pretty clear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, which is why I linked it above. But I have the feeling we have a meeting of words, not a meeting of minds here ;-). My point is that the constitution does not recognise copyright as a natural right, but rather as a limited right granted for the benefit of society as a whole. I'm particular of Mr. J. (in some things), who put it thus: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea."

- Thomas Jefferson
 * The constitution similarly does not establish a system of copyrights, but only grants congress the power to do so (or not). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. And I'm not aware of anything in the Constitution about "natural" rights, whatever that may be. It's up to Congress to decide what the word "limited" means. If someone has been granted a copyright or patent "forever", that would seem to be challengeable in court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jefferson was not big on property being a "natural" right in general. Instead of Locke's "life, liberty and property" he came up with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". (Was he the first to do that?) At least Locke's rights are not logically redundant, while Jefferson's are, as liberty includes the freedom to pursue happiness (or, for that matter, unhappiness, if one is so inclined). Contact Basemetal   here  17:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Manchester bourgeoisie proved it for Baseball Bugs! Pimentelrodrigo (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Even the staunchest libertarian agrees with the need for laws and government" — yes, okay, ‘government’ in the broad sense, but here's my token reminder that not all libertarians agree that the state is a good way to get it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Restricting the definition of socialism to "government owned property" ultimately ignores participatory socialism in which the proletariat owns the means of production (i.e, through co-operatives). State ownership is only one of the various modes of social ownership, therefore, it makes no sense in restricting the definition of socialism to only include state ownership of property. Furthermore, anti-copyright views are not exclusively advocated by Communists, but also Anarchists. With that said, it should not be cast under the blanket of "intellectual communism". Pimentelrodrigo (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've seen socialism used (mainly pre-1914) to mean, if I understand right, a system merely not biased in favor of landowners and other beneficiaries of artificial scarcity. —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The standard academic definition I've seen is that socialism is a system where the means of production are held in common ("by the society"). It's not the same as communism, which is supposed to abolish private property completely (or nearly completely). In the Marx/Engels view of history, socialism is one step on the way to ultimate communism. These definitions come from the early times of industrialisation, and how they apply today, where "means of production" may be a laptop and an iPhone, i.e. very personal items, and where more and more value is tied up in intangibles, not in factories and heavy machinery, is certainly an interesting question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That easy, eh? (I'm talking of your edit summary). Contact Basemetal   here  15:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's as with dieting - the first 5 pounds are easy, but they come back with a vengeance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Defining anarchism as a form of libertarianism is as helpful as defining Adventists and Christian Scientists as a sort of doctors and surgeons. Nevertheless there are anarchists who prefer to be called libertarians.  Likewise, most socialists will advocate Marxism (the Communist Manifesto is rather short and up-front) while calling themselves progressives.  As for the issues of the commons and right of way on waterways and undeveloped land, that dates back to common law, not Marx or Locke.


 * Copyright in the US (1790) was originally granted for 14 years upon application, with a 14 year extension registerable. Nowadays in the US it lasts 120 years or life plus 70, with no need for paid registration or renewal. The original intent was to award creativity, not to enthrone media monopolies.  Opposition to current copyright law does not necessarily mean opposition to interlectural property as such. μηδείς (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly call progressives socialists. Strong copyright can lead to monopolies, but they aren't monopolies themselves. — Melab±1 &#9742; 17:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Melab-1 -- Look up the infamous Derek Khanna report, "Three Myths About Copyright Law and Where To Start To Fix It" (released under the aegis of the Republican Study Committee, but then quickly retracted) for a conservative case for copyright reform. During much of the 19th century, the United States intentionally had relatively lax copyright in some respects, which often facilitated republishing works of European authors without having to pay royalties, and no one who knows anything about the subject would call the 19th century U.S. "communistic"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The PDF you'll find at AnonMoos' suggestion, http://www.mbw.name/Derek_Khanna-RSC_Policy_Brief.pdf is very worthwhile reading. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw a lot of no true Scotsmen in that publication. "This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators 'deserve' or are 'entitled to' by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights." What the? This doesn't make any sense. "Copyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez faire capitalism." By whose definition? "Under the current system of copyright, producers of content are entitled to a guaranteed, government instituted..." No more so than any other form of property. I feel like this guy is trying to deflect from criticism of uber-capitalism or whatever you wish to call it. — Melab±1 &#9742; 17:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can agree or disagree with the guy; I was only pointing out that there are some self-proclaimed conservatives who approach copyright more from the point of view of overreaching government regulation creating inefficiencies, rather than labeling any attempt to reform copyright laws "communistic"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the Constitution allows Congress to establish copyrights, and since conservatives are supposedly "strict constructionists", then they shouldn't have any problem with it. Unless those are the same folks who have convinced themselves that income tax is unconstitutional, despite being in the constitution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you're a constitutional strict-constructionist, then you might be a little perturbed that the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft has interpreted the phrase "for limited times" in the Constitution to extend to indefinite and infinite times... AnonMoos (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I used to attributing this protection extension trend to adversary effects of the available reproduction and recording technologies, now according to that article it seems that (ever-escalating ?) US-EU divergences have played their role in the conclusion. --Askedonty (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are other interesting economic ideas like Georgism that stand out from any attempt to dichotomize capitalism and socialism, each of which are diverse bundles of economic ideas already. Some people have done a great job of PR, making it out as if their beliefs were a law of nature and we are all either necessarily for them or against them, nonetheless it isn't so. Wnt (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

American English
Why is the american english spelt like honor instead of honour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.226.89.216 (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's complicated, but basically it's Noah Webster's fault, and it probably has something to do with him not wanting Americans to write like Englishmen, just because. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 07:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 49.226.89.216 -- In this particular case, the change is presumably motivated both by eliminating a useless letter and returning to the original Latin spelling of the word... AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well we used to call it mensk before the Normans brought the word honour (with this spelling).   D b f i r s   12:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * color / colour? --Hans Haase (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And? Contact Basemetal   here  12:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Webster coulda gotten rid of the 'h' too. Not too useful a letter here either, is it. Contact Basemetal   here  12:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you want to keep it clear from the 'odor' of the 'onion'. --Askedonty (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So writing 'honor' in order not to have to write 'hodor' and 'honion'? Makes sense. Never thought of that. Contact Basemetal   here  15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We definitely would not like honour to be tainted by the odor of onions -- Q Chris (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the Oxford English Dictionary it was spelled both as honour and honor in British English up to the 17th century, after which honour gradually took over, perhaps because several influential 18th century dictionaries, including Dr. Johnson's, adopted it. As for the many more such words, like humour, labour, and colour, that are spelled without the -u- in American English, you can find a discussion of their different spellings here. --Antiquary (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that it's the British who changed it, and then copped an attitude because we didn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As the man said. It's Samuel Johnson's fault, Webster is innocent. Pinker has an informative bit on the linguistic divergence in "The Language Instinct". Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems as much the fault of modern editors as any that came before. Why do some people insist on dividing the English language into nationalities, when it is clearly the same tongue?  I don't know why people are so eager to adopt pointless trivia like "twerk" yet resist using well-established words like "prat".  Even Wikipedia gets into the act, letting people insist on having one nationality or other to an article rather than being content with a little variation. Wnt (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One issue here is knowledge of the existence of differences. I've seen many instances on Wikipedia of editors changing the spelling of a word with an Edit summary that suggests they don't even know that what they regard as a mistake is actually correct usage to many millions of people around the world. Another problem, especially in regard to Wnt's comment above, is those pedantic teachers who brainwashed many of us at a young age into believing that there is only one correct way to spell a word, making us feel that the appearance of a different spelling is some sort of crime against the English language. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those folks don't have a clew. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember many Scrabble games with my family of origin where someone would attempt a word like "color" (mainly because they didn't have a U, or couldn't fit it in), only to receive howls of derision to the effect that it's how Americans spell it (and ergo obviously not a proper word, but that was as often as not left not even needing to be stated). (I have risen above my family. I may even forgive them. Eventually.)  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In defence of Samuel Johnson, he didn't publish his dictionary until 1755, and the British preference for "honour" was already well established by then: Shakespeare's original variable spelling had been standardised to include the "u" by the fourth folio of 1685, and most reputable writers of British English were including the "u" long before Dr Johnson. Earlier spellings in Middle English include onur, onour, onnere, honure and honoure, as well as the two modern spellings.    D b f i r s   00:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Honor Blackman is, of course, English. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Good/Bad/Evil deeds
What other articles are available similar to Karma? Only about good deed(s) and bad/evil deed(s)? Karma is only specific to Hinduism. Could someone let me know please?

(Russell.mo (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC))


 * First of all, karma is not specific to Hinduism. As it says in the lede of that article, "it is a key concept in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism and others." The article also discusses equivalents in Christianity and other beliefs. There is also a "See also" section which directs the reader to related topics such as Consequentialism, Destiny, Unintended consequences, Good and evil etc.--Shantavira|feed me 15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the Karma article, karma per se is not present in Shintoism; the equivalent term is "Musubi". We ought to distinguish between karma and equivalent terms in other religions/philosophies, or we'd get the Karma article into quite a muddle; better to say "Karma" is used by W, X, and Y; group Z has a similar concept called "W'", and groups X' and Y' have a similar concept called "Z'".  Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks peeps -- (Russell.mo (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC))
 * Note: Virtue and Vice articles falls under good and bad/evil deeds. If anyone is interested in reading... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC))

There's also this article in the popular press now on measuring evil. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Disputes on LDS theology proper
Monongahela says that the Divinity is one person, with Father and Son basically being different manifestations of the same person (it sounds Modalistic to me), and the Holy Spirit being a way of speaking about God's power, witness, and glory. Salt Lake City says that the Divinity is three separate gods (or "three separate Gods"? Not sure how the capitalisation works) who always work together. Since both are running from the same set of scriptures, how does each respond to the other? Perhaps Monongahela's tiny enough that Salt Lake doesn't worry about it, but I'm assuming that Monongahela does its best to distinguish itself from Salt Lake, so I'd guess that it has some sort of explanation why Salt Lake is misinterpreting the scriptures. I've looked through their website, but nothing that I could find (even the FAQs) mentioned Salt Lake or their theology proper. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the premise is false. They are not running from the same set of scriptures. Yes, both accept the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but the Bickertonite rejects the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Theology proper for the main LDS church is derived primarily from these latter scriptures. When the Book of Mormon was written, Joseph Smith's distinctive views of God(s) had not developed yet, and hence the Book of Mormon, read in isolation, appears to present a monotheistic theology. - Lindert (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the Monongahela is one of the trinity of rivers around Pittsburgh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been long enough since I read any of the Standard Works, aside from the Bible, that I wasn't aware that most of Salt Lake's doctrine of God was derived from Pearl and D&C. Thank you!  Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't know anything about Bickertonites, but informed "mainstream" Christians often think that the Salt Lake LDS understanding of the Trinity was influenced by the Adam-God doctrine during the 19th century (and possibly part of the 20th century)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read about Adam-God various times, and I've been left wondering whether that's basically the biggest basis for the concept of exaltation, since I couldn't remember encountering a passage in the Standard Works that seemed to be a basis for the concept. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)