Democracy vs Socialism
[i]“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
? Alexis de Tocqueville[/i]
What is so attractive about being a mere number? Is it the security of a crowd or possibly even freedom from the obligation to ponder our reason for being.
In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Simone Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.
"Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking."
But one thing is obvious; liberty is being rejected for the security of becoming "a mere number" within a grand collective.
? Alexis de Tocqueville[/i]
What is so attractive about being a mere number? Is it the security of a crowd or possibly even freedom from the obligation to ponder our reason for being.
In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Simone Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.
"Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking."
But one thing is obvious; liberty is being rejected for the security of becoming "a mere number" within a grand collective.
Comments (141)
And it's hard to talk about either, without talking about capitalism. Capitalism is not inherently democratic. See China. And, if costs are socialized, is that socialism?
Quoting James Riley
"Socialism for the rich, rugged-individualism for everyone else." ~MLK, Jr
:100: Good 'ol MLK, Jr. I always thought "bootstrapping" was appropriate metaphor (impossible) and a self-own, I mean, considering physics and all.
Please cite where the passage you are quoting from Alexis deTocqueville came from.
? Alexis de Tocqueville
Apparently in modern times equality in restraint and servitude has become more attractive than equality and liberty. No thinking required for a mob. Everyone belongs.
Well said.
I wager the attractive part is that they get to release themselves of their duty to their fellow man. Why else would they beg for some state apparatus to pick up their slack?
:up:
I’m surprised you didn’t link to Jacobin mag.
I can read a paragraph of your piffle. But a paragraph full of links and appeals to ridicule is about all you’ve offered.
:lol:
Rather, what is so attractive in seeing other people as being mere numbers?
Democracy is forcing people into that. Because in democracy, the only hope for success that one has is success through sheer large numbers.
Snap! :100:
In regard to the pandemic, and in a context of God and humanity, a lady in this ranching country recently asked "Whoever came up with the term 'herd immunity'?"
I did not respond because it was not an open forum, but I wanted to say "Probably the same people who came up with 'Human Resources'."
OK, so greed and self interests assure that tyranny and the loss of liberty is the only way to restore order. That is typical in the world. However Simone Weil offers another option. Is it possible? Not now. The rejection of the help of Grace is too powerful in the world. She learned the futility of Man's efforts during her years as a celebrated Marxist. She wrote:
Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.
Liberty is impossible without the help of Grace. The secular world rejects the help of grace so the descent into some form of tyranny seems inevitable.
It certainly looked that way at the time -- 1934. Germany, the USSR, Italy...
But it is a mistake to oppose democracy and socialism: the former is a political system, the second is an economic system. Democracy is better contrasted to totalitarianism, and socialism is better contrasted to capitalism.
The extent to which collectivism dominates post WWII societies is another question, well worth pursuing,
Capitalism operating in ostensibly democratic societies produces a dehumanization of the individual not much different than the collectivist states Weil was observing.
Quoting Nikolas
Yet another category disconnected from collectivism, capitalism, democracy, totalitarianism, socialism, and everything else. Maybe Grace, freely bestowed by a loving God, is necessary for liberty -- but the idea is altogether untestable and undebatable because grace is a mystery for religious people, non-existent for secular people.
The kind of mass societies we find ourselves in are more atomized than collectivized.
Quoting Nikolas
Funny isn't it? Consider how democratic market socialist societies tend to be the most secular – least religious ?- and yet for decades have been consistently atop surveys of (social welfare as well as material) standards of living such as the UN Human Development Index ... Empirically, it seems, there's an inverse relationship between "grace" (as reflected in the religious affiliation by percentage of the population) and political, economic, social & life satisfaction; apparently, the totalitarian infantilization of "faith" isn't so good for liberty or equality after all (just look at e.g. the very Christian US, Latin America, EU's southern countries and Islamic countries around the globe – all occupy lower ranks on such global surveys).
"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." ~Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor
:100: Not that you read my posts, but if you ever see me use the word "grace", which I absolutely love, I hope you do not attach to my meaning all that religious clap trap, and will instead try to parse my use. Religion has tried to abscond with words like a Republican tries to abscond with Old Glory. If it goes on too long with inadequate defense, it will become true and they will own it.
I first used it the context of a distinction between living in grace with what I eat, as opposed to the Christian habit of saying grace before they eat it. Grace would be a humble receipt, without accounting for whether it was taken or given. Where there is a knife and a stone, grace is a respect for the stropping itself, the honing, and the contribution of each, beyond the two participants alone. It's a thank you to the participant (whether they volunteered or not) and not some invisible man in the sky.
I guess I should spend more time with the definition, to refine it better. That's just stream of consciousness. I suppose the use of the word by a Christian like Richard Rohr might be more palatable, but since I don't recall his actually addressing it, I don't want to buy in yet. It just sounds like my take might be more like his than most Christians in general.
Edited to add: I've got no truck with these simple definitions: "simple elegance or refinement of movement" and "courteous goodwill" and "do honor or credit to (someone or something) by one's presence."
:100:
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified." Simone Weil[/i]
People have become content to fill their minds with imagination so there is no room to receive the higher energy of Grace and enable a person to acquire freedom from the prison of Plato's cve
Yes. The power of association is cancelled by the point of purchase.
[quote=Imagine][i]No hell below us
Above us only sky[/i][/quote]
An apophatic glimpse of 'pure immanence' ...
Simone didn't want to sustain her life but rather to live it. She accomplished what a person can by consciously living their life. Is the following description as she was nearing death fantasy? If not, what does it mean?
[i]I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon[/i]
That’s a beauty of a quote.
Quoting Nikolas
She did neither. So much for "grace".
Quoting Nikolas
Quoting Nikolas
No qualification, no real argument, just an blind assertion. Only adequate response is, "no". Not only in regards to the commentary on socialism, as shallow as it is brief, but to democracy, which doesn't "attached all possible value to each man", or "seek equality in liberty" and other vague unqualified statements.
Quoting Nikolas
Quoting Nikolas
Insane. Absolutely insane. We are living in a time of unprecedented individualism as demonstrated by the self-centered response of Western countries in response to Covid. People have in fact become a "mere number", a sacrifice to a pandemic or sacrificed others, because they couldn't bear to wear a mask for their own or others protection, they had to eat indoors because they couldn't bear to go months without being served, people demanded that they be able to shop indoors. THE GOD DAMN CEO OF GOFUNDME SAID THAT 1/3rd OF DONATIONS ARE TO COVER MEDICAL COSTS.
There is an interesting debate to be had between democracy and capitalism and socialism but we won't find it here.
What is an individual? Is it the same as a blind opinion defending what Man has become defined by collectives or is it a person's striving to become themselves?
You are not describing individuals but the mindset Plato described in the "Ship of Fools" analogy. These mutinous crewmen all considered themselves as individuals and qualified to steer the ship. They were fools since they didn't know the way home but acted like they did. Are they individuals IYO or just like fools which we celebrate every day?
If that would happen, what in your mind would be the point of view and the most important topics on such a broad and complex issue? Assuming people could talk about the same issues, that is.
I think starts of well with saying:
Quoting Bitter Crank
But I would disagree with @Bitter Crank in regards to the a priori contrast between democracy as a political system and socialism as an economic system. We know such a contrast was untrue for Feudalism, a social system whereby political elites obtained economic surplus by appropriating from the peasantry. This is an integration of the economic and political. Separating the economic and the political spheres when conceptualizing post-Capitalist socio-economic structures is an unfortunate byproduct of Capitalist realism, as under Capitalism, it is the market imperatives that provide the coercive measures to supply the economic surplus which had previously been ensured by militaristic power behind the aristocratic elite. (Albeit the "rules of the game" under Capitalism e.g. property rights, worker rights, regulatory apparatus, etc. are indeed political constructs, so the demarcation of politics and economics is more illusory than at first appearance). So the question for Socialists is...how would we reintegrate the political and the economic in order to avoid coercion through market imperative while also avoiding coercion through class exploitation? I would say it probably looks something like (as @180 Proof suggested) economic democracy
Apparently as we are, we are incapable of both. The ideal of equality in freedom falls victim to greed and corruption while equality for statist slavery also falls victim to greed and corruption. It is just harder to get rid of.
The seeker of wisdom with the love of philosophy ponders why it is so and if change is possible while normal people are content to argue back and forth between fragments of ideals. Everything turns in circles. It is nature's way.
In Europe feudalism can be viewed as the result of when the state is incapable of gaining and upholding a centralized power. Simply put it, when those in power have basically no ability to create a central power, then the last option is to simply divide the land to your allies to the size that is governable. Yet for the pre-capitalist era the economic system referable to would be mercantilism as feudalism and mercantilism go quite well hand in hand. It is the remnants of mercantilism as the economic system that capitalism had to fight against and overcame in the 19th Century. Hence I think Bitter Crank does have a point because otherwise we won't notice the subtle differences between a political system and an economic one.
This is historically backwards. Feudal power on continental Europe was fragmented - began as decentralized - and eventually moved towards centralized power (e.g. French Absolutism which began the 16th and 17th century). Mercantilism, like Feudalism, requires politically-based extra-economic means through which to gain and establish commercial power, e.g. dominating ship building, monopoly of trade routes, provision of trading privileges, establishing trading posts in external markets, etc. through which to sell dear in fragmented markets. I'm not quibbling about "subtle differences" between systems. Obviously there are differences. I'm simply saying that, contra Bitter Crank, we shouldn't separate Democracy under politics and Socialism under economics.
:up:
If you think that Europe had the Roman Empire before in Antiquity, it isn't. at all.
Having huge cities like Rome or Constantinople means that you have to have efficient trade roots and an advanced economic system. First collapse of globalization would be how Antiquity ended. With case of last bastions of feudalism, let's say Imperial Ethiopia, the story is different.
Quoting Maw
So modern social democracy is the problem? For part of the left social democracy isn't socialism, yet I think it's been the most successful part of the broader leftist movement. And they are OK with capitalism.
Perhaps then.
:roll:
Thus, the corporation is anti-capitalist. You can't be a capitalist and still accept the protections of government via the corporate veil. This draws the distinction between pure capitalism and some hybrid. So I want to ask, if we can drift off of pure capitalism and the self-described "capitalists" are fine with that, then why can't they possibly entertain the idea that socialism has different flavors too?
If I own the air I breathe (property), and X wants to pump poison into it, shouldn't he have to negotiate the contractual right to do so, with me, in an arm's length transaction? And if I, and others like me, refuse to sell, then should he not be required to attach a hose to his car's exhaust pipe, bring it around into the driver's seat and intubate himself with that shit when he wants to drive?
The right is fond of calling out environmentalists for being hypocrites if they drive cars. But the right does not understand capitalism. If I conserve a gallon of gas, the supply goes up, the price goes down, demand is simulated, and the right pumps more poison in the air, which I have to breathe. So self-consistency of conservation is self-defeating. It takes society, acting in concert, to clean the air. Just like the right doesn't go take out Saddam by themselves, society has to spin up to do certain things. Again, quasi-socialism.
So we all decide to pump the brakes, step back, and come to the table as reasonable people, and negotiate. We say look, the social benefit to be received by allowing greedhead here to employ people, make cars, pump oil, sell cars to everyone so we all drive, is worth some poison in the air, whether James Riley over there likes it or not. But in return for not forcing greedhead to take personal responsibly for his actions, we will tax him and use some of the revenue to help offset the costs. "Is that okay with you, greedhead?" "Well, I'd rather not, but yeah, if I don't have to be a capitalist, then yeah, I'll go along." How about you, James Riley?" "Well, I don't like breathing poison, but cars are sweet, so yeah, as long as we try to ameliorate the poison."
So, because greedhead forgets the agreement, and has an inflated view of his importance to the world, I propose the following legislation:
"Henceforth, all who seek incorporation shall, before the granting of same, sign the following oath:
'In return for big government protecting me from having to take personal responsibility for my own actions, and for allowing me to socialize the costs thereof onto the backs of innocent third parties who do not agree to assume the same, I hereby promise to not hold myself out to the world as being self-made, risk-taking, rugged, or personally responsible. I shall publicly refute any who so hold me out. I also promise not to whine like a little bitch when I am taxed a tiny portion of my profits. Nor will I use those profits to purchase the whores and gigolos in the legislature or executive to lower my taxes, or to legislate additional limitations upon my personal responsibility, beyond those I am receiving by this socialist incorporation, which occurs in violation of the tenants of capitalism. Finally, I also stipulate to the piercing of the corporate veil, and exposure of all my personal assets for claw-back, no matter how well or where hidden, should I violate this oath.'"
Yeah, I'm good with that.
Now, if anyone wants to talk about how personal property came into possession, we can talk about that too.
End rant.
it permits that if the majority thinksthat 2 + 2 is 21 it can be voted and passed as a law and if you are against it you are against Democracy and you are going to be canceled. Yes the left knew that and they have the control now
Correct. If we read Lenin, for example (State and Revolution), democracy for some socialists is not an end in itself but a means to attain Socialism which in turn leads to Communism. And Socialism is clearly defined as "dictatorship" from Marx and Engels onwards.
A new definition of democracy is obviously needed. IMO it would have to be something like "rule according to the will and interests of the people" and not "rule by the people" which as history shows has been misinterpreted and misused by many totalitarian regimes.
Democracy is too easy to subvert, though.
OTOH, neoliberal theorists are suspicious of democracy's power to thwart individual ambitions. They prefer governance through decrees, judicial rulings, and experts.
Democracy doesn't satisfy anybody, apparently.
Yes. The fundamental problem of socialism is that it started off as an offshoot of utopian philosophy. It was later modified to make it sound more “scientific” but it never succeeded in throwing off its utopian character.
As a result, socialism tends to appeal to emotions. Because it "sounds right" people tend to believe that it must be right and before they know it, they land in the realm of utopia from where there is no easy escape.
Essentially, socialism becomes a form of faith-based religion and some socialists from Marx and Engels to G B Shaw actually proposed making socialism into a religion that would supplant other belief systems.
Marx, Revolution and the Legacy of Utopian Socialism: A Critical Outline
A Postmodern Utopia? Heller and Fehér's Critique of Messianic Marxism
Democracy, as Plato warned, can be the tyranny of the demos, that is, the mob.
Tocqueville also said:
And:
And:
The extent to which socialism promotes equality and liberty should not be overlooked. Without social security the restraint of poverty would leave millions in servitude. Without regulations children would still be in servitude to factory owners, our food supply adulterated with substances powerful manufacturers would still keep hidden from us, air and water quality would be far worse than they are. The list goes on.
A nice slogan, but one that rings hollow when one stops looking at an ideology and begins looking at actual people.
I think socialism's alleged promotion of equality and liberty is debatable. Socialism began as a reaction to the social and economic changes brought about by industrialization and urbanization, e.g. the dire situation of workers in textile factories, etc.
However, capitalist society saw itself forced to do something about those negative developments even without socialist revolution, hence liberalism ultimately won the debate.
The reaction of socialism to liberalism's victory was to invent new grievances or use old ones to dislodge social and economic groups from mainstream society and garner support for its agenda of seizing power for its leaders.
You will find that liberal or social democratic parties consist of a large number of Marxists trying to push those parties and the whole political system further and further in the direction of socialist dictatorship.
From that perspective, "social security" is just the bait used by clever socialists to promote communism, i.e. abolition of private property and total state control over society. This has happened far too often in recent history, and is still happening as we can see from China and other socialist regimes, for anyone to ignore it.
It doesn't look that way here. Both left and right are opposed to the status quo. Time for an epic adjustment.
Socialism has time and again failed in the economic sphere. Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Eastern Europe, all were forced to revert to capitalist methods in order to survive.
Socialist parties can no longer attract voters with tales of overabundant socialist economies hence they are trying to win over followers by making themselves champions of racial, ethnic, cultural, environmental and other issues that lend themselves to the emotional and psychological manipulation of the masses..
He is an independent, but Bernie Sanders did quite well attracting voters.
Correct. Proletarian vs bourgeois has progressed to black vs white, female vs male and anything else that promotes a "divide and rule" policy.
I don't know, it's been working for thousands of years. Why abandon it?
Bernie Sanders may have attracted some voters but far from enough. Trump only lost because of the epidemic and because he made mistakes during the election campaign. This is not surprising though as he isn't a career politician.
How do you define "two-valued orientation"? We must have a concept of right and wrong otherwise social order and everything else collapses into anarchy and chaos.
Actually, I think it is the wisdom of nuance that keeps things "working." Kind of like natural selection. Cross thread points. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10752/being-a-man/p5
P.S. How do I grab just a single post from another thread and link it here?
How do you define "two-valued orientation"? We must have some concept of right and wrong otherwise social order and everything else collapses and we descend into anarchy and chaos.
A two-valued orientation would be saying that socialism is incapable of incorporating aspects of capitalism, and capitalism is incapable of incorporating aspects of socialism. It's like saying there is only black and white; no grey, no red, no blue . . .
Then there is the knob who thinks that dipping your toe into one results in an inevitable slide to it's logical extreme.
Up vs down. No nuance required. A freaking border collie can do it. :cool:
Sure. However, politics is about power which is a limited commodity. You can only acquire power for yourself by taking it from someone else and the more power you have the more you restrict others' access to power. This is why liberalism starts with fighting for freedoms for some groups and ends up suppressing others.
Right vs wrong. I get it. And there is something to be said for the friction, and maybe even the impending fire, but those who get to sit around it and cook aren't burning up in it.
It's still not an either or proposition. Not all power has to be taken. Just some.
The point though is that in practice you need to suppress others to some extent in order to stay in power. Nobody wants to be the underdog. The dominant group might be disposed to share some power but this will still leave it a dominant position. How do you share power fairly?
Well, life is not fair. So what we do, in pursuit of self-interest, is we try a little bit of socialism, a little bit of capitalism, a little federal democracy, lots of guns, but mostly, education. Lots and lots of education. And not in *what* to think, but *how* to think. Oh, and trust and the maintenance of credibility by individuals and institutions.
And in that case you can't avoid pushing back the subversive "divide-and-rule" crowd. Reestablishing the rule or right, in other words.
Or, we could always remember the higher ideals and aspirations of the traditional political culture, and try to live up to them. Maybe, also, stepping back and realizing that maybe the fragmentation has started inside, with our own fragmentation and refusal to allow those "others" in. Maybe a recognition that "we" are no longer a majority. Maybe leading by example (the city on the hill, the thousand points of light, etc.) instead of realpolitik.
Trump is a demagogue surrounded by sycophantic plutocrats . He is exactly the kind of person Plato warned against in his criticism of democracy. His popularity has largely to do with the politics of resentment. By the time he ran for office the second time he was a career politician and remains so.
I agree. Most regimes today, including the US, are mixed regimes.
Well, that sounds a bit too idealistic to me. It seems to overlook the agendas of subversive groups and foreign powers using local proxies to destabilize governments. Plus, the process of fragmentation may have already gone too far or is proceeding at too high a speed for idealistic countermeasures to actually work.
I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject. It was not a full out revolution but the creation of unions to advance workers rights was a socialist movement. If liberalism won it was because of the socialists who advocated for the right of workers.
Quoting Apollodorus
Again, look at the history. Social security was not the bait, it was however denounced by its detractors as socialism and communism. It was signed into law in 1935. If it was a program to promote communism it failed. As a program to promote the economic welfare of the American people it has been a remarkable success comrade.
Funny enough, unionists didn't want to hear anything about Marx and Engels' socialist plans. And farmers and artisans even less. Marx and Engels themselves point this out in their Communist Manifesto.
The term predates Marx and Engels'. Marxism and socialism are not the same.
The Founding Fathers were "a bit too idealistic" too. But they didn't overlook the agendas of subversive groups or foreign powers using local proxies to destabilize the government. I think the process of fragmentation has not gone to far. It's just that the dominant paradigm doesn't like it. I don't think they need to get the hell out of the way, but they could quit being so two-valued. In fact, their dualistic thinking is more likely to create the oppositional push-back they dream of in their slippery slope arguments. Case in point: the Sanders and AOCs of the world are just a natural response to the right's failure to listen to capitalists like Warren. Please don't dissect the particulars on that: it was merely an example of how dualistic thinking is the source of it's own chagrin.
The idealistic countermeasure would call for a little self-reflection, instead of all the stupid finger-pointing and boogey men.
:100: I am hard-pressed to think of a single, solitary creation of man, currently embraced, and loved by the conservative mind, which was not, at it's genesis, zealously fought against and hated by their processors in interest. They like to pretend they created it, but it was brought to them, over their kicking and screaming, tightly wadded panties, by the liberals of the day. That is the course of humanity: liberals dragging conservatives into the future and progress. I suppose the resistance is a good thing. But, it can make the slog very exhausting. It's like dragging an insolent child through vegetables.
That’s an important point. It’s the same with the modern welfare state. State welfare in imperial Germany and Austria, for example, were reactionary and religious creations. That progressives nowadays champion such measures, and conservatives oppose them, is somewhat ironic.
I would argue, though, that both conservatives and progressives have led us into a future of abject statism rather than something desirable. But as you say that’s the course of right-left politics.
It isn’t me you should be upset with, it’s the big corporations and corrupt politicians.
I haven’t got anything against socialism. But true socialism doesn’t exist anymore. After Marx and Engels closed down their Socialist International, socialism was taken over by England’s Fabian Society and Labour Party who have dominated the international socialist movement ever since in collaboration with big industrial and financial corporations.
Do some research and see for yourself:
Fabian Freeway: Highway to Socialism in the U. S. A.
The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy
That’s why the Labour Party has lost elections since 2010. People are beginning to wake up and see through the Fabians, the European Union and other socialist projects. There is a big awakening in Europe, Italy, France, Poland, Hungary, all of them are beginning to wake up. Even Scandinavian countries and soon Germany. Trust me, I've seen what's happening.
Yes, and one must be careful about picking the worst of the other side as a representative of it. Those who detest the idea of welfare will often drag out the worst as an example of what can and does happen. But reasonable people and policy makers should not base their decisions on what we used to call in the Marine Corps the 10%. If we want to devote time and resources to dealing with them, we can, but we should not let that stand in the way of helping the 90%.
I wish I could find it (it was stated much better than I can) a tweet on social media where a lady made a good point about how you actually get more out of people, and don't discourage hard work, when you treat them with respect and dignity.
Although social security is popular the GOP is still opposed:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/11/02/republican-public-opposition-to-social-security-and-medicare/?sh=3de051b44e71
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyaltman/2019/08/26/republicans-are-pushing-myths-about-social-security-to-justify-their-demands-for-benefit-cuts/?sh=2e636a5e1107
The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I am upset with you. I don't know who you are but I don't imagine you have much power to change things.
Quoting Apollodorus
No one can take over socialism. All they can do is promote a particular socialist position. In the same way, no one can take over democracy.
Quoting Apollodorus
The pendulum swings. No one knows how things will look ten or twenty years from now.
As some wag once said, "They want the issue, not the solution."
The issue is more important because without it, they have no importance. They are running out of issues, so they make them up. Like a war on Christmas.
But make no mistake: The system is working just fine. It's just fine for some and not for others.
And yet they remain popular. I think it is a combination of fear and resentment fueled by well funded right wing propaganda.
I think it fair to say, if you want to know what the right wing is doing look at what they criticize the left for.
:100:
Of course no one knows what will be in 10 or 20 years. Maybe Europe will be taken over by China and then we'll have Chinese-style communism instead of socialism. I'm only saying what's happening right now. By "taking over socialism" I meant exactly what you're saying, promoting one particular brand of it, like one that's favoured by big corporations, as opposed to others favoured by the masses. But that amounts to the same thing, in my opinion. It means that the man in the street has no say in it and is being led on by politicians.
By this I mean two things. First, we do not know how successful and policy or program will be. There will be unforeseen and unintended consequences. Second, I think the looming environmental crisis will serve as a major challenge to myopic notions of individualism and isolationist nationalism.
I can't disagree with that. All I'm saying is that "socialism" isn't always what believers in it think it is, as happened in the Russian revolution when many woke up to a great shock after thinking that overthrowing the imperial order would solve all their problems. If there is one lesson to learn from history is that politicians can't be trusted and this seems to be increasingly the case, for the simple reason that the world's problems are far too complex and there are too many competing interests for any politician to find the right answers. "Solutions" often give rise to new problems and politicians are often forced to take a short-term view of them which only exacerbates the already dire situation. The Covid-19 pandemic is a good example of how totally wrong things can go. It ought to be a wake-up call for all of us no matter our political persuasion.
Because democracy is a form of government while socialism is not, how do you compare these two?
Yes, on this we agree. It is used as a term of condemnation without understanding what it actually is.
Yeah, like "liberal". So effective has the "right" been in spitting that term out like a curse that even liberals started to run from it, searching for alternatives like "progressive". Before the propaganda machine got after it, socialism was as American as apple pie. Check out history back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That's what I hate about the left. They always cede ground until it's time to get the war on, then they go out and win it, but at what cost?
If I call someone "stupid" the right will not have a problem with that. The left will try to come up with some other term, even if it fits. The right also tries to steal Old Glory. And, by god, some on the left cede that fight too, which the right then cites as proof of their point! Jeeze!
Meanwhile, anyone who went to school (and paid attention) knows full well that every single solitary one of our founding fathers was dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
Well, check that. I guess anyone who went to school (and paid attention) knows full well that "liberal" is a position, not a person. So there you have it. Even I have taken to screwing terms because the stupid people have made their definitions the norm.
I wonder if that's how languages develop over time?
Quoting Fooloso4
I don't think condemnation is the problem. In a democratic system, opposition should be allowed.
I think the problem is that even socialists don't know what socialism really is until it's too late.
The majority of those who call themselves "conservative" are without knowing it liberal in that they ascribe to the tradition of natural rights, equality, individualism, in a word, liberalism. Perhaps if more of them had a good liberal arts education they would know this.
So, what is it that differentiates them? More often than not religious, moral, and political dogmatism.
Is social security socialism? If not then what is it? Those who opposed it called it socialism.
All I'm saying is that it's wrong to condemn those who condemn socialism, as this presupposes that opposition to socialism shouldn't be allowed. Socialists seem to think it's their birthright to condemn others but not for others to condemn them. Says a lot about socialist psychology really. I'm not saying it's your fault.
And no, social security isn't socialism. There was public road building, public health care, a standing army paid by the state, etc. even in Ancient Greece and Rome. Total state control over society, that's what people object to.
Yeah, if they read up on the Enlightenment, Liberal Democratic Theory and Radical Democratic Theory, and the merchant class and Jefferson's yeoman farmer, their mind would explode. I ain't no Liberal and you can't make me! LOL!
Roman armies were funded by aristocrats.
To my knowledge the Roman military was funded by the imperial government through revenue from taxes, etc. Either way, the army was kept for the public good. That doesn't make it "socialism", it's just common sense for a state to have an army otherwise it won't be a state for very long. Not everything that's necessary or sensible is socialism.
I saw a guy post a meme showing Roman roads still extant, and asking why our engineers could not do that today. My simple response was, it's amazing what you can do with unlimited slave labor.
"Unlimited slave labor"? Even in Rome slaves were a minority. Plus they had to be fed, etc.
I guess it evolved over time. Early Roman armies were owned and operated by aristocrats who made decisions for their own interests.
Quoting James Riley
So true. :grin:
What? The vast majority of the populations of Greek city states were slaves. Why would Rome be different?
Don't argue with me.
P.S. My last was tongue in cheek.
Much of this discussion has been over the definition of the word socialism. Not trying to be flippant here. Is partial state control OK? If so, how much? What are the criteria for determining when there is too much state control?
Yes, this is the great fear. I don't know if you are in the US but in almost every election Republicans will label their Democratic opponents no matter how moderate or conservative "socialists", and that if the evil Democrat is elected that will be the end of democracy and freedom.
This puts socialism in the same category of political arrangement in society as Naziism, totalitarianism, Monarchy, military despotism, martial law, and -- I am sorry to say this -- American-type capitalist democracy. Each of these will vehemently not tolerate a (or any) political system that is different from it, each of these will have its own type of control that it relentlessly exercises. In my opinion the US society exercises control over its subjects by diffusing ignorance, by making the populace believe superstitious ideals so strongly, that their better judgement leaves them. The control involves the poor and downtrodden to think they are temporarily embarrassed billionaires. What else could they be? America is the land of limitless opportunities for ALL, so the reason they eat out of other people's garbage and the reason their bodies fester in hateful diseases untreated is not society's fault, not their own, but of but a stroke of bad luck.
In America, as well as it used to be in ex-communist countries, the media has complete grip over the population. There is one big difference: the lies that shape a nation was completely rejected in communist countries back then, but nobody dared to utter their skepticism out in the open; and in America, the lies are accepted and believed without any reservations. This is the ONLY difference in the public's response to the lies in the media that the ruling class forces the papers to print. In the Communist states nobody believed them, but acted as if they did; in the Western democracies everyone believes them, no matter how outrageous the lie is. "Saddam Hussein hides weapons of mass destruction under the sand of the vast deserts of his country."
Well, that seems to be part of the problem. There are many different definitions or views of socialism. Some claim that "socialism is not Marxism", however, Marxism is a form of socialism and for the most part of the history of socialism it has been the dominant form.
Given that most forms of socialism advocate some state control, we could perhaps classify them according to the degree or extent of state control advocated. Obviously, some forms of socialism advocate total state control which to most people, socialists included, is not acceptable.
This is precisely why many socialist regimes have reverted to some forms of capitalism and there is no strict socialism anywhere, even in dictatorships like China. In fact, China is more accurately described as communist-controlled state capitalism.
I disagree with the equation "monarchy = total state control". Constitutional monarchies are no different from liberal democratic states. In fact, most of them are liberal democracies for all intents and purposes.
But you're right about media control of mass information in capitalist society. It shows how similar capitalism has become to totalitarian socialism.
What does "pretty socialist" mean? Examples?
The US came much closer to total state control under Trump than under any Democrat. He had his own unofficial propaganda news outlet, while condemning whatever news media that were critical of him as "enemies of the people". He suppressed official scientific reports on climate change. He attempted to overturn the election. He made frequent claims that he was above the law. The Republican Party was, and to some extent still is, so afraid of him that they dare not oppose him on even the smallest point.
If he is re-elected and gains a majority in both the House and Senate he will have dictatorial total state control.
Earlier you said:
Quoting Apollodorus
Are you saying that these things from Ancient Greece and Rome were "pretty socialist"?
How is abortion "pretty socialist"? The law recognizes a woman's right to choose. It is up to her, the individual. It is when the state intervenes and denies that right that we more toward total state control?
There is no state controlled gender ideology. It is when the state insists on an idealized notion of gender conformity that we move toward total state control.
I have no idea why you might think that discourse on equality is "pretty socialist". Equality discourse is fundamental to the founding of the US.
I do not have time to discuss hidden costs, which are just hidden taxes, but the cost is not born by corporations or the wealthy. Corporate welfare is much closer to socialism than anything you mentioned. To put it succinctly, politics is business by other means. It may be more accurate to call this an oligarchy or plutocracy, but if socialism is, as you define it, total state control then it is capitalism rather than socialism that is moving us in that direction.
Yes, the same can be said, but the question is whether what they say is true. Republicans accuse Democrats of voter fraud but have not been able to prove it.
The Republican Party are followers of Marx, Groucho Marx. As the song goes, "whatever it is I'm against it."
Hang on a second. Aren't you confusing @Alexandros with @Apollodorus there?
I can't speak for others, but the point I was making was that the Left tends to use any issue, especially issues that appeal to emotion and lend themselves to mass mobilization, for its own agenda. It isn't that the issues themselves are always "socialist" or "left-wing", just that they are used for socialist purposes without those involved even realising it.
I just noticed that I mistook some comments by @Apollodorus for your own.
Quoting Alexandros
The center shifts. Gary Trudeau has a TV series called "Alpha House". In one episode there was a Republican retreat and they hired a Reagan impressionator for entertainment. They became incensed
by what he said and thought it a betrayal of Conservationism. It turns out that everything he said was taken verbatim from Reagan's speeches. He was far left of today's center.
Quoting Alexandros
But you have not said what the difference is.
Quoting Alexandros
Yes, they are continually renewing the fight and reframing the issue. Are you claiming that the woman has no right regarding what happens in her womb? The problem is intractable because there are conflicting rights. The more developed the fetus the more standing it has. I think there are significant differences between a zygote and an innocent human being. But this is not a debate I want to get into.
The Constitution is silent on abortion. It was a common practice at the time and was not prohibited by law.
Quoting Alexandros
Please look at the history of abortion practices in colonial America and the eventual development of laws prohibiting abortion.
Quoting Alexandros
Both Democrats and Republicans have been in favor of corporate welfare. It is at present only the Democrats who are proposing raising taxes on corporations. Many of them currently pay no taxes.
Quoting Alexandros
Yes, I noticed that. See above. Sorry again.
Yes, I did and noticed it when responding to Alexandros above. My apologies.
Quoting Apollodorus
The same point can and has be made with regard to the Right.
However, the Left shouldn't be allowed to use emotional issues of this kind for the purpose of political subversion and to undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. That's why new standards of civility and common sense must be introduced. We need to return to more moderate attitudes and values.
Of course, the Right may be using similar tactics too but two wrongs don't make one right. This is one example of how socialism can undermine democracy.
The right to an abortion is established law. The Left is not using abortion as an emotional issue, their concern is with preserving the law. It is the Right that wants to overturn the law. This is the one of the main reasons the Right got behind Trump. He is by no means a traditional conservative.
Quoting Apollodorus
Are you referring to the insurrection of January 6th? You must be, because nothing else comes close. Only it was the far Right Trumpsters.
Are you saying that the Right wants to change the law but the Left is opposed to that change?
In other words, change is OK when the Left wants it and not OK when the Right wants it. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?
From your other thread:
And, if there are two basic camps - the camp of "change" or "left" and the camp of "preservation" or "right" - who is right or wrong?
— Apollodorus
Such bivalence is far too simplistic. If the Republicans want to make America great again they are advocating for change. If the Democrats want to protect abortion rights and environmental regulation then they are advocating for preservation.
And:
I don't think this is correct. Politics, left and right, is social experiment. If a favored policy reveals its shortcomings then the intelligent thing to do is address it and make changes. The American Founders put in place the ability to amend the Constitution.
You set up a false dichotomy. You are treating change and preservation without regard to what it is that is to be changed or preserved. Both liberals and conservatives seek to change some things and preserve others.
But let's back up a step. You said:
Quoting Apollodorus
By emotional issues of this kind you meant abortion. My response is that the Left is not using it as an emotional issue. It is established law. It is the Right who is using it as an emotional issue and trying to overturn the law. And so, it is fair to say that the Right is only interesting in preserving the law when they approve of the law. I don' find this hypocritical but it does demonstrate the problem of equating conservatism with preservation.
I was going to make a joke: its all Greek - names - to me.
BLM leader Patrice Cullors has openly endorsed the policies of Socialist leaders like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong and has described herself and other BLM organisers as “trained Marxists”.
I think she admits that in her book as well, "When They Call You A Terrorist".
Activists at BLM demonstrations have been seen carrying signs with Black Nationalist and Socialist slogans such as “Smash capitalism!” and “fight for Socialism!”
The group is financially supported by the Chinese Progressive Association:
Trained Marxist' Black Lives Matter co-founder is being funded by group linked to the Chinese Communist Party
Maybe this is what our friend Fooloso4 was trying to cover up by denying that civic movements are used for political purposes by the far Left and foreign governments?
Not only Greek but also Green. We all seem to share the same color. How did you arrange that?
This is true. But my claim is that in monarchy, the state has total control. So who has the control? The people (if constitutional monarchy is indistinguishable from democracies.) Who is the state? The people. The people have total control. Therefore the state has total control.
Right you are again. But I wrote "monarchies". NOT "constitutional monarchies". Strawman argument.
Burkina Faso? No... The French Polynesian Islands? no... Vatican City? no... Peru. That's it. It's got to be Peru.
A northern european country governed by social democrats long time. Majority very poor 1900, a slow revolution that made equality around say 1970 very strong. Strong focus on personal merit, big trust in institutions. Good people working. Last years, global havoc, big immigration followed with high criminality. Lower class non-immigrants badly affected by immigration, upper class progressives happy "having saved the little man". The only conservatives - immigrants from muslim countries. Of course, absolute majority of immigrants good people. But havoc in a classroom is not caused by the majority being chaos kids.