a new promise...

[Immanuel Can]

As long as the state provides free at the point of delivery health care for every member of society, regardless of their financial status, that is a socialist policy...

No, Socialism doesn't get to claim only the good it does...it has to claim that bad it does, too.

Real Socialism is a comprehensive economic policy that brooks no rivals...one of the things that makes it inherently anti-democratic, actually. But an economy that has quasi-socialistic elements in it, but still depends for its entire vitality on capitalism is not properly "Socialist." It's a hybrid scheme; but Socialism cannot tolerate hybridity.

Any decent, humane society has to have some degree of socialism.

I would prefer to say that any such society has to have charity and compassion. But there's no need for Socialism; in fact, again, Socialism is the opposite of charity and compassion, because it relies on the government to exhibit virtues that the citizenry is allowed to lack. If the government will take care of the mentally ill, the sick, the elderly, and the lazy, then one might easily ask, "Why should I?"

Which is exactly how it played in the Soviet Bloc, if you look back. No charity, no compassion, no liberty and no opportunity. Just Socialism.

The Berlin Wall wasn't put up to keep people from escaping from West to East. The boats from Cuba all go one way.

[Harbal]

As long as the state provides free at the point of delivery health care for every member of society, regardless of their financial status, that is a socialist policy...

No, Socialism doesn't get to claim only the good it does...it has to claim that bad it does, too.

Real Socialism is a comprehensive economic policy that brooks no rivals...one of the things that makes it inherently anti-democratic, actually. But an economy that has quasi-socialistic elements in it, but still depends for its entire vitality on capitalism is not properly "Socialist." It's a hybrid scheme; but Socialism cannot tolerate hybridity.

Any decent, humane society has to have some degree of socialism.

I would prefer to say that any such society has to have charity and compassion. But there's no need for Socialism; in fact, again, Socialism is the opposite of charity and compassion, because it relies on the government to exhibit virtues that the citizenry is allowed to lack. If the government will take care of the mentally ill, the sick, the elderly, and the lazy, then one might easily ask, "Why should I?"

Which is exactly how it played in the Soviet Bloc, if you look back. No charity, no compassion, no liberty and no opportunity. Just Socialism.

The Berlin Wall wasn't put up to keep people from escaping from West to East. The boats from Cuba all go one way.

My interpretation of socialism is a system where all members of society are taken into account, your definition seems to have been constructed by you with the specific intention of making it easy to discredit. This will not be a revelation to anyone here; I think we are all very familiar with the antics of Immanuel -Straw Man- Can by now.

[Immanuel Can]

My interpretation of socialism is a system where all members of society are taken into account,

That's NOT what Socialism does. It's just the PR pitch it uses.

Socialism allegedly "takes into account" only the collective. Individuals don't matter, unless they serve that collective. That's why it claims to be "social" rather than "individual" or "personal." And the "taking into account" of anything is done by the government system, not by the people. But it's even one step removed from that ideal, because the government serves the interest only of perpetuating its own power and ideology; even the collective itself is just a thing to be used by the Socialist elite.

The Socialist elite gets to declare what "the people's interest" is. And as far as Socialism is concerned, the individual can die in the dark if he or she doesn't like it. So can the collective, which finds that it doesn't end up ruling at all; it is ruled by "The People's Party," which is only the Socialist elite, again.

Want proof? Here's what I offer you: every Socialist regime that's ever existed in history. And on the other side....nada.

[Harbal]

My interpretation of socialism is a system where all members of society are taken into account,

That's NOT what Socialism does. It's just the PR pitch it uses.

Socialism allegedly "takes into account" only the collective. Individuals don't matter, unless they serve that collective. That's why it claims to be "social" rather than "individual" or "personal." And the "taking into account" of anything is done by the government system, not by the people. But it's even one step removed from that ideal, because the government serves the interest only of perpetuating its own power and ideology; even the collective itself is just a thing to be used by the Socialist elite.

The Socialist elite gets to declare what "the people's interest" is. And as far as Socialism is concerned, the individual can die in the dark if he or she doesn't like it. So can the collective, which finds that it doesn't end up ruling at all; it is ruled by "The People's Party," which is only the Socialist elite, again.

Want proof? Here's what I offer you: every Socialist regime that's ever existed in history. And on the other side....nada.

Socialism, like capitalism, is a spectrum, and both are disastrous when taken to extreme. You are only describing extreme versions of socialism, in your usual dishonest way. Private enterprise is important, but so is social fairness, and there is no reason -other than greed- why they can't coexist. The world would be a right wing religious Hell if you had your way.

[Immanuel Can]

You are only describing extreme versions of socialism,

I'm not, actually: I'm only describing what happens when Socialism becomes the dominant economic paradigm. So long as it remains only an aspect of an otherwise free market, it's not totally toxic. I think I've been quite clear about that. Still, any partial social welfare plan is never going to be a money-maker, and will always have to live off of the largesse of capitalism of some kind.

Private enterprise is important, but so is social fairness,

Agreed. But governments are incapable of creating "social fairness," or "fairness" of any kind, really. It's virtuous people that make virtuous governments, and corrupt people who corrupt both free markets and social welfare plans.

[Iwannaplato]

as there seems to be a lot of criticism, what else is new?..
so, instead of many different responses, which would take hours
I don't have today, I shall write one response to them...
will your criticism be there? don't know

Facile, evasive. An unwillingness or inability to interact (rather than react) to other people's ideas.

OK, from the top... I listed the three ism's of the 20th century..existentialism, Marxism, and capitalism...

'the'??? Existentialism affected the feelings and to some degree the perspectives of some intellectuals. It inspired some art, mostly literature and films. It's a category error to include it. It's not an economic system or doesn't have one as a part of it.
Nationalism
Globalism
Socialism!!!!
Hybrid economies-ism
Post-colonialism
Corporatism
Progressivism
Post Modernism - which is a category error, but a better choice then existentialism.

Humanism - there's a much better ism for the list.

Just a few vastly more influential isms than existentialism.

I mean, even people like Sartre were also communist, Heiddeger has his anti-humanism and sort of nationalism, Camus had anarcho-syndicalism, Jaspers had humanism and so on.

Existentialism is not of the three big isms of the 20th or 21st centuries.

Yeah, whatever, PK.

You want greatness as a philosopher. Learn how to actually interact with the ideas of others.

[Peter Kropotkin]

as there seems to be a lot of criticism, what else is new?..
so, instead of many different responses, which would take hours
I don't have today, I shall write one response to them...
will your criticism be there? don't know

Facile, evasive. An unwillingness or inability to interact (rather than react) to other people's ideas.

OK, from the top... I listed the three ism's of the 20th century..existentialism, Marxism, and capitalism...

'the'??? Existentialism affected the feelings and to some degree the perspectives of some intellectuals. It inspired some art, mostly literature and films. It's a category error to include it. It's not an economic system or doesn't have one as a part of it.
Nationalism
Globalism
Socialism!!!!
Hybrid economies-ism
Post-colonialism
Corporatism
Progressivism
Post Modernism - which is a category error, but a better choice then existentialism.

Humanism - there's a much better ism for the list.

Just a few vastly more influential isms than existentialism.

I mean, even people like Sartre were also communist, Heiddeger has his anti-humanism and sort of nationalism, Camus had anarcho-syndicalism, Jaspers had humanism and so on.

Existentialism is not of the three big isms of the 20th or 21st centuries.

Yeah, whatever, PK.

You want greatness as a philosopher. Learn how to actually interact with the ideas of others.

K: ummmm, first things first.. I never said that existentialism is one
of the big three in the 20th century, although it is in fact, one of them...
part of the problem with children is that they are historically illiterate...
and for me personally, existentialism is very interesting and I make use
of it all the time... I am not all that interested in the ism's you mentioned...

true story: once I was talking to a kid, as I am over 60, anyone younger
than 50 is a kid to me, anyway I mentioned I was born in the Eisenhower
administration.. and the kid said, wasn't Eisenhower president right after Lincoln?
and I instantly agree.. yes, why I missed the Lincoln presidency by that much...
(using my fingers to show how close I was to being born in the Lincoln years)...
as I was at work, the older people in line in my check stand started to laugh,
but I held my pose and stayed serious... and we all had a good laugh once
the kid left... make of that what you will.....

Part of the problem today is that the kids don't have any historical sense..
existentialism is so part of the landscape today, you don't even notice it..
and it was a major theme of the ARTS, literature, paintings, theater
and movies for decades.. you just don't realize it... mainly because
it is so inherent in everything you think about, you can't see it anymore...
the exact same way that the kids don't realize the impact of Watergate
or the Vietnam War...it has so changed the country and because you
are too young to know it, you can't see it anymore.. practically all politics
today is some sort of reaction to both Vietnam and Watergate..
I was in high school when Watergate hit.. and it changed everything...
but because you are young, you are unable to see that impact.. but I see it...

so, existentialism stays...even if you can't see its impact...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

in thinking about it, the book "Mash" and the movie of the same name,
are both commentaries driven by existentialism...
not the TV series.. but the book and movie... as is the movie
"The Graduate"... in fact one could create an interesting thread
about the impact of existentialism on the media...
maybe if I have time, later...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: ummmm, first things first.. I never said that existentialism is one
of the big three in the 20th century, although it is in fact, one of them...

I quoted you in the post you are responding to....

OK, from the top... I listed the three ism's of the 20th century..existentialism, Marxism, and capitalism...

part of the problem with children is that they are historically illiterate...

Part of the problem with you is that you are just plain illiterate even when it comes to what you write.

and for me personally, existentialism is very interesting and I make use
of it all the time...

Which is another issue entirely. And interesting that you say you 'make use of it all the time' but in earlier posts you are saying it leads to negative outcomes and attitudes.

I am not all that interested in the ism's you mentioned...

Bullshit: Humanism and Progressivism, first a thread started by you
viewtopic.php?p=599947#p599947
and second a quote where you write about reading extensively about progressive ideas
viewtopic.php?p=632382#p632382

I have studied Left ideology and read extensively on left progressive concerns. I am certain I understand them better than you do. The progressive left position has an intellectual base.

But this lack of self_knowledge on your part is not relevant: i didnt say that you should or should not be interested in the isms I listed. I was objecting to calling the three you list 'the three isms of the 20th century'.

I quoted you saying that and then wrote:

'the'??? Existentialism affected the feelings and to some degree the perspectives of some intellectuals.

Note the quotes around 'the'. Note that I later said 'influential'.

Just a few vastly more influential isms than existentialism.

I didn't say great. I didn't say you should be interested in the others. I was clearly questioning the importance/influence.

Part of the problem today is that the kids don't have any historical sense..
existentialism is so part of the landscape today, you don't even notice it..
and it was a major theme of the ARTS, literature, paintings, theater
and movies for decades.. you just don't realize it... mainly because
it is so inherent in everything you think about, you can't see it anymore...
the exact same way that the kids don't realize the impact of Watergate
or the Vietnam War...it has so changed the country and because you
are too young to know it, you can't see it anymore.. practically all politics
today is some sort of reaction to both Vietnam and Watergate..
I was in high school when Watergate hit.. and it changed everything...
but because you are young, you are unable to see that impact.. but I see it...

so, existentialism stays...even if you can't see its impact...

Kropotkin

i*m over sixty also: i am well aware of existentialism's influence in the arts:
but it doesn*t fit with capitalism and communism, huge economic systems influencing all realms of human life...
those are not the three isms
you don*t seem to read what i write:
you don*t seem to read what you write

i mean the utter irony of telling me i am illiterate about history; which there is no evidence of here; while you can*t even read the post you QUOTED!!!!! nor do you even seem aware of your own interests:

and you asked me to write about capitalism earlier and I did, you hypocritical illiterate pompous ass.

[promethean75]

"Private enterprise is important, but so is social fairness"

These are always in contradistinction I've noticed, and it harkens back to that greatest of misunderstandings of Marx, Karl.

What happens is, becuz capitalism leads to massive wealth disparity, people begin to be suspicious of a free and competitive market, the general concept... but they haven't any idea what would replace it. They've done away with the idea of a merit based system altogether and start thinking everybody should get everything for free. No and no.

Meanwhile in the media, marxism becomes automatically associated with the sentimentalities of the marginalized classes and these little movements arise that have absolutely no revolutionary substance and nothing to do, essentially, with marxism. Then everyone who is gay, black, trans, female or broke becomes a communist by default.

If u aksed Karl what he thought the phrase 'social fairness' meant, he'd say 'bro I'm not a philosopher. All i know is that when u set up a system where one class cannot profit unless the class it exploits is given less than the value of its labor, you're gonna have some sirius problems. Forget about what is or isn't 'fair' there John Locke and focus on giving the ownership of the means of production to the working class.'

[Immanuel Can]

If u aksed Karl what he thought the phrase 'social fairness' meant, he'd say 'bro I'm not a philosopher.

That's the last thing Marx would ever have admitted. He would have rather said, "I know exactly what I mean; I'm a genius, and you owe me a free living while I explain to you what a genius I am."

He was a pompous grifter, as all his biographies and his writings themselves show. He was certainly no self-effacing pragmatist.

[Immanuel Can]

You want greatness as a philosopher. Learn how to actually interact with the ideas of others.

He doesn't do that. He doesn't apparently have confidence in his ability to respond to critiques or to handle any real human conversation. It seems he's here to write lengthy monologues full of erroneous claims he can't substantiate, in the hope of making himself into some kind of Marxist guru people will follow, or at least of virtue-singaling his being an "ally" of the Marxist propaganda machine.

[Harbal]

What relevance has Marx got to us? There maybe some parts of the world where the people are simple enough to think he might have been on to something, but I think that ship has well and truly sailed in the West.

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: ummmm, first things first.. I never said that existentialism is one
of the big three in the 20th century, although it is in fact, one of them...

I quoted you in the post you are responding to....

OK, from the top... I listed the three ism's of the 20th century..existentialism, Marxism, and capitalism...

part of the problem with children is that they are historically illiterate...

Part of the problem with you is that you are just plain illiterate even when it comes to what you write.

and for me personally, existentialism is very interesting and I make use
of it all the time...

Which is another issue entirely. And interesting that you say you 'make use of it all the time' but in earlier posts you are saying it leads to negative outcomes and attitudes.

I am not all that interested in the ism's you mentioned...

Bullshit: Humanism and Progressivism, first a thread started by you
viewtopic.php?p=599947#p599947
and second a quote where you write about reading extensively about progressive ideas
viewtopic.php?p=632382#p632382

I have studied Left ideology and read extensively on left progressive concerns. I am certain I understand them better than you do. The progressive left position has an intellectual base.

But this lack of self_knowledge on your part is not relevant: i didnt say that you should or should not be interested in the isms I listed. I was objecting to calling the three you list 'the three isms of the 20th century'.

I quoted you saying that and then wrote:

'the'??? Existentialism affected the feelings and to some degree the perspectives of some intellectuals.

Note the quotes around 'the'. Note that I later said 'influential'.

Just a few vastly more influential isms than existentialism.

I didn't say great. I didn't say you should be interested in the others. I was clearly questioning the importance/influence.

Part of the problem today is that the kids don't have any historical sense..
existentialism is so part of the landscape today, you don't even notice it..
and it was a major theme of the ARTS, literature, paintings, theater
and movies for decades.. you just don't realize it... mainly because
it is so inherent in everything you think about, you can't see it anymore...
the exact same way that the kids don't realize the impact of Watergate
or the Vietnam War...it has so changed the country and because you
are too young to know it, you can't see it anymore.. practically all politics
today is some sort of reaction to both Vietnam and Watergate..
I was in high school when Watergate hit.. and it changed everything...
but because you are young, you are unable to see that impact.. but I see it...

so, existentialism stays...even if you can't see its impact...

Kropotkin

i*m over sixty also: i am well aware of existentialism's influence in the arts:
but it doesn*t fit with capitalism and communism, huge economic systems influencing all realms of human life...
those are not the three isms
you don*t seem to read what i write:
you don*t seem to read what you write

i mean the utter irony of telling me i am illiterate about history; which there is no evidence of here; while you can*t even read the post you QUOTED!!!!! nor do you even seem aware of your own interests:

and you asked me to write about capitalism earlier and I did, you hypocritical illiterate pompous ass.

K: 60's you say... given your lack of self control and style of writing,
and your need to stalk me, I had you pegged to be around 22...

my bad....and off to work I go...

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

We are all Hegelians at heart, Harb, becuz even tho we can't explain anything, we feel and know that history is a logical, rational, progressive process and that while Marx, Karl may have been a cocksucker sonofabitch, he had a brilliant idea that we are watching unfold here on erf.

Yeah but no i just wanted to explain how Marx, Karl got caught up in all this hoopla about 'social justice' that we're seeing today. Case and point is Immauel Sham. If there was an award for 'best misunderstanding of Marxism', it would go to IS, hands down.

Now I gotta scram before IS attempts to engage in more debating with me becuz I mentioned him and then like a yellow bellied coward, refused to defend myself or my arguments. Thank u and good day.