special interests in socialism

[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.

1/2 that.

No, actually, probably more. The 100 million is a conservative estimate, not an excessive one. But let's not bother to debate that. Even were it half, as you propose, it would be a total condemnation of Socialism, would it not? I mean, to kill 50 million is surely enough. Nothing else has come close to doing that.

Rightwing Germans

You mean "National Socialists," or NAZIs. They were Leftists, and Socialists by creed.

if you wish to play the body count game,

Game? Oh, my friend, it's no game.

When an ideology kills so many people, that's the most serious kind of condemnation. And the thing we've got to fear is the folly that led so many people to try the horrible Socialist experiment over, and over, and over again, despite how many people it always kills. And now, there are actually people talking about trying it again in various parts of the Western world.

It always makes me marvel at their arrogance. I mean, they've seen that the Germans, the Russians, The Chinese, the Cubans, the Venezuealans, the Zimbabweans, the Cambodians, the Bulgarians and Hungarians and Albanians, and many more who have tried it...and in every single case, the bodies have stacked up. And yet, today's people must think the Germans, the Cambodians, the Albanians, the Cubans and so on were all stupid -- because they believe that if THEY had been in charge of Socialism, the bodies would not have piled up at all. They actually think they are much smarter than the many millions who tried Socialism and failed. What arrogance! And what a price we will pay if they get to try their horrid experiment again.

Game? Oh, that's no game, I assure you. Not when the stakes are so high.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, socialism is not Stalinism.

No, Socialism is not JUST Stalinism. Stalin only presided over one form of the total mess that is Socialism. It's also Castroism, Maoism, Hitlerism, Pol Potism, and Kim Jongism, among others. The despot changes, and the body count just keeps going up, not matter who's in charge of Socialism.

The democratically elected government should control a great lot of spending.

"Spending"? You talk as if the money already exists in some magical form. Why not ask if the government is in legitimate control of forcing money out of its workers and citizens, since that is exactly what it does. It's called "taxes." It's your labour, which is drained off by the government and used for purposes that it, not you, gets to decide. And since it's no money of theirs, they don't control how they "spend" it very well, and are wasteful to a huge and generally-recognized degree with it -- just as you might be, if you suddenly won the lottery.

This is one of the great stupidities of Socialism. It believes in "magic money," in "government money" that just comes from nowhere, in infinite supply. Advocates of Socialism never seem to ask, where's the magic money coming from, that these governments are going to "spend"? And who has the true right to tell them how they ought to "spend" the money that magically appears on the government's doorstep? The Socialists just think that government is this benign cash cow, the only possible motive of which is to serve the workers.

Hogwash. Governments are composed of people, and people are always susceptible to corruption and stupidity, because their folly has only few and distant penalties. Nothing corrupts them faster than having control of vast pools of other people's money. And the belief that Socialist governments are all just naturally good ruins economies faster, and gets more people killed, than any other belief.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476924 time=1603631878 user_id=9431]
[quote=gaffo post_id=476895 time=1603605813 user_id=15438]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476672 time=1603480884 user_id=9431]

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.
[/quote]
1/2 that. [/quote]
No, actually, probably more. The 100 million is a [i]conservative[/i] estimate, not an excessive one. But let's not bother to debate that. Even were it half, as you propose, it would be a total condemnation of Socialism, would it not? I mean, to kill 50 million is surely enough. Nothing else has come close to doing that.

[quote]Rightwing Germans[/quote]
You mean "National Socialists," or NAZIs. They were Leftists, and Socialists by creed.

[quote]if you wish to play the body count game,[/quote]
Game? Oh, my friend, it's no game. :shock:

When an ideology kills so many people, that's the most serious kind of condemnation. And the thing we've got to fear is the folly that led so many people to try the horrible Socialist experiment over, and over, and over again, despite how many people it always kills. And now, there are actually people talking about trying it again in various parts of the Western world.

It always makes me marvel at their arrogance. I mean, they've seen that the Germans, the Russians, The Chinese, the Cubans, the Venezuealans, the Zimbabweans, the Cambodians, the Bulgarians and Hungarians and Albanians, and many more who have tried it...and in every single case, the bodies have stacked up. And yet, today's people must think the Germans, the Cambodians, the Albanians, the Cubans and so on were all stupid -- because they believe that if THEY had been in charge of Socialism, the bodies would not have piled up at all. :shock: :shock: :shock: They actually think they are much smarter than the many millions who tried Socialism and failed. What arrogance! And what a price we will pay if they get to try their horrid experiment again.

Game? Oh, that's no game, I assure you. Not when the stakes are so high.
[/quote]

Murders were never in the name of socialism. Nobody said "Socialism requires we murder people." because that's not part of the ideology of socialism. The profit motive, however, had no such good of the people at heart. Wreckless disregard for externalities is inherent in capitalism, while being mean is inherent in certain people, regardless of which ideology they follow. Intentional interference and an unwarranted assumption of infallibility are inherent in religion. There is no bad inherent in socialism.

Similarly there is no magic money in socialism. The ideology of socialism notes not imply method. As Belinda pointed out, it's compatible with capitalism, democracy, various forms of communism. When most people talk about socialism they simply mean "for the good of everyone instead of special interests."

[henry quirk]

There is no bad inherent in socialism.

sure there is

as I say: for socialism to work, man would need a set of instincts and a disposition he lacks...this is why every attempt at socialism is a state socialism: folks bein' forced to do things they don't wanna do, won't do if given the choice

capitalism, even a state capitalism, is much more in keepin' with man's natural inclinations...this is why capitalism, even state capitalism, always works

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=476933 time=1603636335 user_id=472]
[b]There is no bad inherent in socialism.[/b]

sure there is

as I say: for socialism to work, man would need a set of instincts and a disposition he lacks...this is why every attempt at socialism is a state socialism: folks bein' forced to do things they don't wanna do, won't do if given the choice

capitalism, even a state capitalism, is much more in keepin' with man's natural inclinations...this is why capitalism, even state capitalism, always works
[/quote]

What it works to do is exacerbate the inequality that makes it seem progressive in the first place while hiding all it's ill in graves, in foreign lands, or in the future. Capitalism is raping the planet and trying to put a price tag on every molecule of air. There is no ideology of sustainability or fairness in capitalism. There is no comparison between people doing evil in the name of capitalism, as has always been done, and doing bad in the name of socialism, which has nothing to do with the ideals of socialism whatsoever. Socialism is about fair distribution, whether or not it's accomplished. Capitalism is about unfair distribution, whether or not it's accomplished. Capitalism is "successful" because it only needs to "work" for a very few, who can then lie to everyone else who have no power to overthrow or even fact check them effectively. When socialism doesn't work, everyone sees it. When capitalism works fine, nobody but those at the top see it until it's too late and we have a market crash. Many more people have died in search of profit than in search of fair distribution of the world's wealth, but even if that were not the case, socialism would still be good and capitalism would still be bad because one of those two ideas tries to make things better and the other simply doesn't care.

[henry quirk]

Capitalism is raping the planet and trying to put a price tag on every molecule of air.

no, capitalism (free enterprise) doesn't do this...state capitalism, to the extent the state interferes to insulate the wealthy from natural market forces (supply & demand), can be unscrupulous...the problem, then, is not with capitalism, but with the corrupting state (any state)


There is no ideology of sustainability or fairness in capitalism.

capitalsm (free enterprise) is thoroughly moral as it encourages self-reliance, self-direction, and charity; the state, when it oversees & interferes in free enterprise, nullifies that moral dimension as it encourages greed over self-interest and domination over competition


There is no comparison between people doing evil in the name of capitalism, as has always been done, and doing bad in the name of socialism, which has nothing to do with the ideals of socialism whatsoever.

socialism only exists as state-driven affair; no pure socialism can work cuz it's ideals are unnatural

capitalism always work and only works less well when it becomes a state-driven affair


Socialism is about fair distribution, whether or not it's accomplished.

socialism works against the very natural uneven distribution of talent, experience, resources, property, etc.; it stifles competition, innovation, self-responsibility...sensible folks understand this and reject it which is why socialism never naturally happens..always, socialism is violently imposed


Capitalism is about unfair distribution, whether or not it's accomplished.

capitalism works with the very natural uneven distribution of talent, experience, resources, property, etc.; it encourages competition, innovation, self-responsibility...sensible folks understand this and embrace it which is why socialists look to adulterate it and advance the state as overseer of it


Capitalism is "successful" because it only needs to "work" for a very few, who can then lie to everyone else who have no power to overthrow or even fact check them effectively.

no...free enterprise works, even with the parasitical state suckin' at it, cuz man is quite naturally capitalistic...he wants to self-direct, to self-rely, to invest his energies and reap the benefit of that investment...again: it is the state that poisons capitalism

socialism never works, not as pure expression or state-driven affair, cuz man is quite naturally capitalistic...he wants to self-direct, to self-rely, to invest his energies and reap the benefit of that investment...socialism blunts man's natural inclinations

[henry quirk]

I grow tomatoes

i tend the garden

when the garden produces I collect the fruit

socialism suggests I give away that fruit to anyone, everyone...this is fair distribution...never mind the tomatoes exist solely cuz I planted, tended, and maintained while others did squat

capitalism (free enterprise) suggests the tomatoes are mine to do with as I choose: I can sell them as is, can them then sell 'em, I can donate them indiscriminately, I can gift them to those I deem worthy....my efforts, my investment of time and energy, as evidenced by those tomatoes, belong to me

socialism sez I, and what I do, belong to others

capitalism sez I, and what I do, belong to me

[Immanuel Can]

Murders were never in the name of socialism. Nobody said "Socialism requires we murder people." because that's not part of the ideology of socialism.

Actually, the murders always took place under the guise that the victims were "enemies of the State," to use the common phrase. That is, the Socialist Ideal State of the Soviet Union, or Maoists, or Cuban Rebels, or whatever. And it didn't even wait, in all those cases, for the Socialists to have full control before they were shooting people into the ditches in the name of Socialism.

There is no bad inherent in socialism.

Then let me ask you this: where does the "bad" that has appeared in 100% of the cases of actual Socialism so far in the history of the world come from?

Similarly there is no magic money in socialism.

There is the belief that money comes from governments. But it doesn't. it comes from your pocket and mine, and ultimately from our labour, time and risk. It's what we exchanged by giving up parts of our own lives.

When most people talk about socialism they simply mean "for the good of everyone instead of special interests."

I think that's true.

Most of the current interest in Socialism, at least in the West, is born of naivete and "good intentions." But as they say, "The road to Hell..." One can intend well, and make horrid mistakes nonetheless, especially when one is ignorant. Meanwhile, there are still definite ideologues and Neo-Marxists around, who are more than happy to take advantage of those "good intentions" and push us down the road to their purported "revolution"... i.e. to Hell in a handcart.

We've seen their work in Seattle, in Portland, in Minneapolis... Again, all done in the name of social justice, equality, fairness...and all the other Socialist ideals.

Socialism only looks plausible today because "most people" actually don't know much about Socialism, about economics or about history. Lamentable, of course, but true.

[Immanuel Can]

[Advocate]

>Actually, the murders always took place under the guise that the victims were "enemies of the State,"

Yes, that points to the more universal problem of ideologues in their assumption of infallibility. Failure of checks and balances is where any system is guaranteed to fail. Epistemological warrant is enormously undervalued.

>Then let me ask you this: where does the "bad" that has appeared in 100% of the cases of actual Socialism so far in the history of the world come from?

First you have to distinguish socialism in families where it works just fine most of the time, from State Socialism, at scale, which is always a mishmash of various ideologies subject to a mishmash of prior restraints, interferences, and personalities. The latter has failed from interference often enough, logistical difficulties beyond the capacity of those in charge often enough, and bad actors often enough, but i would say that is the complexity itself that is the root, and in particular that the ideology is so fuzzy and debatable.

In contrast, capitalism is extremely simple and pragmatic which is how it "works". When the people in charge make the rules for their own benefit exclusively, what's left is merely to hide the externalities, and they've thrown plenty of resources at that problem for a long time.

>There is the belief that money comes from governments. But it doesn't. it comes from your pocket and mine, and ultimately from our labour, time and risk. It's what we exchanged by giving up parts of our own lives.

That's not particularly socialist. It's simple statism to say the state must provide services and that requires money. A state must assume it's own legitimacy to Be a state and a state is Always necessary. The problem with most states is that their assumption of legitimacy is taken as equivalent to an assumption of infallibility and they cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility to continuously evaluate and prove their legitimacy.

Given actual legitimacy, the least a state can do is guarantee the survival of it's citizens and that requires a certain level of resources. How those resources are obtained is a matter of doing so in the least harmful way, but it cannot simply not be done. The resources should be taken from those with the most, first, to be the least harmful.

These are necessary understandings for the foundation of any legitimate, sustainable, or efficient state. Questions of particular legitimacy are separate. The social contract must be explicit and consentual to be legitimate.

>We've seen their work in Seattle, in Portland, in Minneapolis... Again, all done in the name of social justice, equality, fairness...and all the other Socialist ideals.

It's interesting how rich and poor alike swarm to cities like San Francisco and Portland which are the most socialist places available in this country.

>Socialism only looks plausible today because "most people" actually don't know much about Socialism, about economics or about history. Lamentable, of course, but true.

Which version? Is it not plausible that we favor the good of every individual rather than a powerful minority based on ancient values? Then surely we are Doomed!

[uwot]

"Spending"? You talk as if the money already exists in some magical form.

That's pretty much how money exists. Money is just a promise. In Britain we make no bones about it, all our banknotes say "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of £X." What do you imagine you will get when you demand your £X?

Why not ask if the government is in legitimate control of forcing money out of its workers and citizens, since that is exactly what it does.

Calm down Mr Can. I'm afraid the world is much more sophisticated than you would wish. We are no longer the bronze age goat herders you believe knew more about reality than space telescopes and particle accelerators can tell us. There are so many things that we take advantage of that we could not conceivably maintain as individuals. So you have a choice: you agree to contribute, or you whine about taxes.

It's called "taxes." It's your labour, which is drained off by the government and used for purposes that it, not you, gets to decide.

We have these things called elections. Very few people get everything they want, so we have to make compromises.

[Advocate]

>That's pretty much how money exists. Money is just a promise. In Britain we make no bones about it, all our banknotes say "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of £X." What do you imagine you will get when you demand your £X?

The British pound is can be exchanged 1:1 for horseshit. That's why it's usually compared to the US dollar.

[uwot]

The British pound is can be exchanged 1:1 for horseshit. That's why it's usually compared to the US dollar.

Thank you for that insight Advocate. So how much horseshit does a US dollar get you?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, socialism is not Stalinism.

No, Socialism is not JUST Stalinism. Stalin only presided over one form of the total mess that is Socialism. It's also Castroism, Maoism, Hitlerism, Pol Potism, and Kim Jongism, among others. The despot changes, and the body count just keeps going up, not matter who's in charge of Socialism.

The democratically elected government should control a great lot of spending.

"Spending"? You talk as if the money already exists in some magical form. Why not ask if the government is in legitimate control of forcing money out of its workers and citizens, since that is exactly what it does. It's called "taxes." It's your labour, which is drained off by the government and used for purposes that it, not you, gets to decide. And since it's no money of theirs, they don't control how they "spend" it very well, and are wasteful to a huge and generally-recognized degree with it -- just as you might be, if you suddenly won the lottery.

This is one of the great stupidities of Socialism. It believes in "magic money," in "government money" that just comes from nowhere, in infinite supply. Advocates of Socialism never seem to ask, where's the magic money coming from, that these governments are going to "spend"? And who has the true right to tell them how they ought to "spend" the money that magically appears on the government's doorstep? The Socialists just think that government is this benign cash cow, the only possible motive of which is to serve the workers.



Hogwash. Governments are composed of people, and people are always susceptible to corruption and stupidity, because their folly has only few and distant penalties. Nothing corrupts them faster than having control of vast pools of other people's money. And the belief that Socialist governments are all just naturally good ruins economies faster, and gets more people killed, than any other belief.

Socialism, for people who are not rampant nationalists, government and laws that support the rights of workers. More right wing systems are biased towards the owners and shareholders. Do you not think the people who actually do the produce the goods should profit from their work?

It is true that people who form governing elites, or who are dictators, are often corrupted, corruptible, or stupid. However this happens most where the governing elite pretend that nationalism is a worthy sentiment. When nationalism is swaying the voters you can be sure that the government is corrupt for nationalist sentiments are diagnostic of corruption at high levels.

[Impenitent]

The British pound is can be exchanged 1:1 for horseshit. That's why it's usually compared to the US dollar.

Thank you for that insight Advocate. So how much horseshit does a US dollar get you?

it used to be gold... now it's valued in lack of kilotons...

-Imp