special interests in socialism

[Immanuel Can]

public transport, basic housing, clean air, food distribution, health, education.

These are all controversial. It's by no means clear that the "public" has any genuine interest in them being "socialized," especially when "socialized" sometimes entails them being made inefficient, expensive and unfairly distributed.

"Prioritized" over...?

Over less needful goods such as fashions, commercial music, foreign holidays, restaurants, luxury transport such as private cars, luxury housing, privileges for rich investors, second homes etc.

These are your interpretations. Advocate did not say these things. In fact, Advocate did not say anything specific at all.

You are, of course, free to have your interpretation; but it is not the same necessarily as his/hers, and it is not obvious what it should be. You should let him/her speak for his/herself, first.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476643 time=1603464593 user_id=9431]
[quote=Belinda post_id=476621 time=1603439776 user_id=12709]
public transport, basic housing, clean air, food distribution, health, education.
[/quote]
These are all controversial. It's by no means clear that the "public" has any genuine interest in them being "socialized," especially when "socialized" sometimes entails them being made inefficient, expensive and unfairly distributed.
[quote][quote]"Prioritized" over...? :? [/quote]

[color=#008000]Over less needful goods such as fashions, commercial music, foreign holidays, restaurants, luxury transport such as private cars, luxury housing, privileges for rich investors, second homes etc.
[/color][/quote]
These are your interpretations. Advocate did not say these things. In fact, Advocate did not say anything specific at all.

You are, of course, free to have your interpretation; but it is not the same necessarily as his/hers, and it is not obvious what it should be. You should let him/her speak for his/herself, first.
[/quote]

Belinda has undertaken to prove to you that the insufficiency isn't in my words, which she interpreted effectively, but in your attempt to verify every little thing. One of those two ways of approaching philosophy is potentially productive. A philosophical point can cover a broad swath of possible interpretations.

Accepting the following maxims:
a) The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty.
b) An answer is a framework for understanding that allows for solutions (bespoke action plans).
will give you a way forward in philosophy, which seems impossible with your current method.

[Immanuel Can]

Belinda has undertaken to prove to you that the insufficiency isn't in my words,

And how? By adding things YOU didn't say?

She does seem to have a basic command of the English language, if not always of good ideas.

A philosophical point can cover a broad swath of possible interpretations.

Perhaps, sometimes. But not an overly-large one, or it becomes merely vague. Yours missed the balance point. It was capable of being interpreted as meaning anything at all, which amounts to saying it had nothing ascertainable to disclose.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476655 time=1603474848 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476646 time=1603465570 user_id=15238]
Belinda has undertaken to prove to you that the insufficiency isn't in my words, [/quote]
And how? By adding things YOU didn't say?

She does seem to have a basic command of the English language, if not always of good ideas.

[quote]A philosophical point can cover a broad swath of possible interpretations.[/quote]
Perhaps, sometimes. But not an overly-large one, or it becomes merely vague. Yours missed the balance point. It was capable of being interpreted as meaning anything at all, which amounts to saying it had nothing ascertainable to disclose.
[/quote]

At this point we have your example and Belinda's. I will bet a penny the majority of additional responses from different people will have no problem parsing what i've written and coming up with responses that meaningfully address the point as intended.

[Belinda]

public transport, basic housing, clean air, food distribution, health, education.

These are all controversial. It's by no means clear that the "public" has any genuine interest in them being "socialized," especially when "socialized" sometimes entails them being made inefficient, expensive and unfairly distributed.

"Prioritized" over...?

Over less needful goods such as fashions, commercial music, foreign holidays, restaurants, luxury transport such as private cars, luxury housing, privileges for rich investors, second homes etc.

These are your interpretations. Advocate did not say these things. In fact, Advocate did not say anything specific at all.

You are, of course, free to have your interpretation; but it is not the same necessarily as his/hers, and it is not obvious what it should be. You should let him/her speak for his/herself, first.

History tells us that unregulated capitalist development causes a lot of suffering, and after a time results in inefficient workers, epidemics, social unrest, wasted talents, and reactionary government.

Do you mean to say you have no notion of what goods are more needful than others? Or are you nitpicking ?

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=476661 time=1603477455 user_id=12709]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476643 time=1603464593 user_id=9431]
[quote=Belinda post_id=476621 time=1603439776 user_id=12709]
public transport, basic housing, clean air, food distribution, health, education.
[/quote]
These are all controversial. It's by no means clear that the "public" has any genuine interest in them being "socialized," especially when "socialized" sometimes entails them being made inefficient, expensive and unfairly distributed.
[quote]

[color=#008000]Over less needful goods such as fashions, commercial music, foreign holidays, restaurants, luxury transport such as private cars, luxury housing, privileges for rich investors, second homes etc.
[/color][/quote]
These are your interpretations. Advocate did not say these things. In fact, Advocate did not say anything specific at all.

You are, of course, free to have your interpretation; but it is not the same necessarily as his/hers, and it is not obvious what it should be. You should let him/her speak for his/herself, first.
[/quote]
History tells us that unregulated capitalist development causes a lot of suffering, and after a time results in inefficient workers, epidemics, social unrest, wasted talents, and reactionary government.

Do you mean to say you have no notion of what goods are more needful than others? Or are you nitpicking ?
[/quote]

yet again the nit has been picked

[Immanuel Can]

History tells us that unregulated capitalist development causes a lot of suffering,

History most definitely shows us that Socialism causes a whole lot more. But you seem strangely unconcerned about the over 100 million dead bodies it has piled up in the last century. I wonder where the concern for suffering went...

Do you mean to say you have no notion of what goods are more needful than others? Or are you nitpicking ?

I'm asking Advocate to say, rather than asking you to make some up. And I'm certainly not going to do his/her thinking for him/her.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476672 time=1603480884 user_id=9431]
I'm asking Advocate to say, rather than asking you to make some up. And I'm certainly not going to do his/her thinking for him/her.
[/quote]

I see the discrepancy. You expect a fully fleshed out thesis and i'm just starting a conversation.

[Immanuel Can]

I see the discrepancy. You expect a fully fleshed out thesis and i'm just starting a conversation.

Okay, fair enough.

But before we decide if anybody has an "interest in Socialism," shouldn't we a know what you mean? How can we judge that, unless you give us specifics?

It's by no means to be taken for granted that anybody ought to have any interest in Socialism. That remains to be shown.

[uwot]

...you seem strangely unconcerned about the over 100 million dead bodies it has piled up in the last century. I wonder where the concern for suffering went...

Mr Can, of the 100 million dead bodies you cite, how many were killed by access to affordable health care or a minimum wage?

[gaffo]

Do you have a contention that some part of what i said it's necessarily or semantically wrong? Because all i'm hearing is that you don't understand, and that's not on me. I'd understand it if i heard it, and so have all the other people over talked with about it.

I did not understand it - if you did - and you wrote it, more power to ya.

i concur with emanual on this one.

English language - outside of its shitty spelling - is tops in vocabulary, but you have to have a mind to use it to express your intent.

and your thread/1st post read like a Politicians. all verbage, and no hat.

sorry, just stating the obvious.

[gaffo]

Belinda has undertaken to prove to you that the insufficiency isn't in my words,

And how? By adding things YOU didn't say?

She does seem to have a basic command of the English language, if not always of good ideas.

A philosophical point can cover a broad swath of possible interpretations.

Perhaps, sometimes. But not an overly-large one, or it becomes merely vague. Yours missed the balance point. It was capable of being interpreted as meaning anything at all, which amounts to saying it had nothing ascertainable to disclose.

At this point we have your example and Belinda's. I will bet a penny the majority of additional responses from different people will have no problem parsing what i've written and coming up with responses that meaningfully address the point as intended.

im one of the "different people" and from your 1st post of verbage, i had no clue to what you were saying if anything, because you said in effect nothing.

if you wouid like to clarify by saying something, im all ears and willing to talk to you about what you said, but to date you have not said anything and so i have nothing to say in reply.

[gaffo]

History tells us that unregulated capitalist development causes a lot of suffering, and after a time results in inefficient workers, epidemics, social unrest, wasted talents, and reactionary government.

yes, concur history tells us what you stated above.

you said something, sadly Advocate said nothing outside of empty verbage.

i welcome him stating something if he chooses.

[gaffo]

History tells us that unregulated capitalist development causes a lot of suffering,

History most definitely shows us that Socialism causes a whole lot more. But you seem strangely unconcerned about the over 100 million dead bodies it has piled up in the last century.

1/2 that. granted via Communism - Meo mostly, then Stalin - first via Ukraine in the 30's (5? million), then ww2 via fighting the germans (25 million - so that death count is via war and not via stalin communist purges), then stalins post ww2 purges (5? million).

so via "communism" in Soviet rule all under Stalin we see 10 million dead. China under Meo, 25? million.

and lets not forget Pol Pot - another 5 million or so.

thats 40 million.

Rightwing Germans killed 9 million (6 jews and 1 gypsies, and 2 "the rest" homos/retarded/insane/political prisoners/etc,) Reichwing imprerial China killed at least 5 million chinese. so thats near 15 million.

-death count now around 55 million.

the rest - around 10 million is via the battlefields of ww2.

if you wish to play the body count game, then we can say that Nazism is 4 times better than Communism.

is it?

or is the world a little more complex than the body count game?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, socialism is not Stalinism. Socialism can and does coexist with capitalism while ameliorating the inefficiencies of capitalism. Communism has been shown to be incompatible with democracy; this can be generally explained by relativity.

The democratically elected government should control a great lot of spending.
For democracy to work we need educated citizens who are able to judge what info is reliable and which not. And we also need to employ independent experts for advising government and opposition,of the facts of every question debated.