Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

But my country at present has a Labour, that is broadly socialist...

No, it isn't, actually. It's only temporarily run by a government the ideology of which nominally leans that way, but which, because of the democratic political apparatus, lacks the power to force its Socialist will on the political system itself. And economically, the system remains staunchly a product of capital, surplus value, private enterprise and ownership...and when it does not, it will soon collapse.

[Will Bouwman]

But you're definitely not in a Socialist country...

I didn't say I was. Again, the words that I used were "social democracy".

And I pointed out that that is not a real thing. It's an oxymoron. Socialism cannot allow democracy.

What you have pointed out is your total refusal to accept what everyone who knows what they are talking about knows to be true. Basically, you have invented a private language that only you speak. That is entirely your prerogative, but understand, what you mean by social democracy is not what anybody else means.

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say I was. Again, the words that I used were "social democracy".

And I pointed out that that is not a real thing. It's an oxymoron. Socialism cannot allow democracy.

What you have pointed out is your total refusal to accept what everyone who knows what they are talking about knows to be true.

Not at all. What I've pointed out is that you can't logically put together two words that are absolute contradictions of one another. That's all.

Basically, you have invented a private language that only you speak.

Not at all. All I've done is pointed out the contradiction in Woke language. And there are certainly a ton of those, so that's nothing special.

[Will Bouwman]

What I've pointed out is that you can't logically put together two words that are absolute contradictions of one another. That's all.

You've done it again. It is only according to your definition of socialism, democracy or both that they are contradictory. If people vote for socialism, the result would be what everyone but you would accept as democratic. You are not pointing out contradictions, you are expressing your opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

What I've pointed out is that you can't logically put together two words that are absolute contradictions of one another. That's all.

You've done it again. It is only according to your definition of socialism, democracy or both that they are contradictory.

No, it's inherent to the concepts.

If people vote for socialism, the result would be what everyone but you would accept as democratic.

That particular vote would have been democratic. The ensuing government that they voted for by democratic means would be one nobody would call "democratic."

As I said: it's obvious that voting for Hitler doesn't make the Third Reich "democratic," even if the initial process had been. Likewise, if you voted for Stalin, that wouldn't make Stalin or Stalinism a democratic person or form of governance.

There's all the difference in the world between how a government got installed, and what kind of government it is. You could vote in a king, or a dictator, or a Socialist regime...and they'd still be exactly what they are -- anti-democratic forms of government. That's obvious to anybody. And I'm certain you're bright enough to see it, even though you don't want to admit you do, perhaps.

[Belinda]

Does that have some relevance to your reading of Scripture? I can't see that it does.

Concerning "I can read"(Immanuel Can) there are degrees of reading ability .

There are also hermeneutics. And reading some kinds of texts requires hermeneutical knowledge and skill that reading primary school books doesn't even offer.

Indeed and I endorse the hermeneutic approach to evaluating reading ability .

[Belinda]

What are you defining as a "social contract"?

Rousseau's concept. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social ... n-Rousseau.

If the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Magna Carta are contracts but not "social contracts" then what are they?

Well, the Magna Carta was a political concession between a king and barons, but involved only the higher levels of society, not the feudal peasants of the day, which still comprised about 80% of the population. The US Constitution was the founding document of a particular country. And women, children or slaves had no say in its creation or terms. These are limited contracts between certain persons and for specific purposes. Rousseau's idea is of a sort of pre-historic, universal consent.

"Social contract," as you're understanding it, it would seem, might mean anything, provided it was used to guide some kind of society, I presume. Rousseau had a very specific notion about what was required in order for a "social contract" to exist. He never thought of it as an actual contract. He knew there was no historical event that created such a thing. It was an exercise of his political imagination, not of fact.

Magna Carta was agreed within the tenets of a feudal society. For a feudal society to allow that barons have rights as against the king is a big advance in human rights

[Will Bouwman]

If people vote for socialism, the result would be what everyone but you would accept as democratic.

That particular vote would have been democratic. The ensuing government that they voted for by democratic means would be one nobody would call "democratic."

The key feature of democracy is not what a party does once it is elected, it is that it is freely and fairly elected and that it subjects itself to future free and fair elections. Socialist governments have been voted in and out democratically without collapsing into the dystopian lunatics you, and only you, insist they must be.

As I said: it's obvious that voting for Hitler doesn't make the Third Reich "democratic," even if the initial process had been. Likewise, if you voted for Stalin, that wouldn't make Stalin or Stalinism a democratic person or form of governance.

That you don't recognise that as a straw man further illustrates your philosophical ineptitude.

[Immanuel Can]

What are you defining as a "social contract"?

Rousseau's concept. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social ... n-Rousseau.

If the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Magna Carta are contracts but not "social contracts" then what are they?

Well, the Magna Carta was a political concession between a king and barons, but involved only the higher levels of society, not the feudal peasants of the day, which still comprised about 80% of the population. The US Constitution was the founding document of a particular country. And women, children or slaves had no say in its creation or terms. These are limited contracts between certain persons and for specific purposes. Rousseau's idea is of a sort of pre-historic, universal consent.

"Social contract," as you're understanding it, it would seem, might mean anything, provided it was used to guide some kind of society, I presume. Rousseau had a very specific notion about what was required in order for a "social contract" to exist. He never thought of it as an actual contract. He knew there was no historical event that created such a thing. It was an exercise of his political imagination, not of fact.

Magna Carta was agreed within the tenets of a feudal society. For a feudal society to allow that barons have rights as against the king is a big advance in human rights

But it's well, well short of what we would expect of any "social justice." Most of the population remained peasants in grinding poverty. so the MC was a baby-step in the right direction alright...but very far from an adequate move. We could say that it spread the unified privileges of the king a little bit further down into the baronial level...it didn't create a "social contract" into which everybody was invited.

The direction was right. The degree was inadequate.

[Immanuel Can]

If people vote for socialism, the result would be what everyone but you would accept as democratic.

That particular vote would have been democratic. The ensuing government that they voted for by democratic means would be one nobody would call "democratic."

The key feature of democracy is not what a party does once it is elected,

That depends. Are you talking about one democratic exercise, or the having of a democratic government? If the latter, then no, the above statement is obviously untrue.

...it subjects itself to future free and fair elections.

Socialism does not. Socialism, by definition, requires government ownership of all the means of production, and a collectivist political program that cannot allow for dissent or departure. Socialism, if it left fair and open elections intact, would be gone in one cycle -- just as soon as the disastrous economic and personal effects of its program became evident the the democratic electorate. People would simply vote it out of existence again.(Rather like what has just happened in the US, for that matter.)

Socialist governments have been voted in and out democratically

If they were voted in and out, then the government never managed to impose Socialism. And wherever they did manage to impose it, there were two absolutely predictable effects: total economic failure, plus piles of corpses.

As I said: it's obvious that voting for Hitler doesn't make the Third Reich "democratic," even if the initial process had been. Likewise, if you voted for Stalin, that wouldn't make Stalin or Stalinism a democratic person or form of governance.

That you don't recognise that as a straw man further illustrates your philosophical ineptitude.

No, you get it. You just don't have an answer.

[mickthinks]

Socialism, if it left fair and open elections intact, would be gone in one cycle -- just as soon as the disastrous economic and personal effects of its program became evident the the democratic electorate.

Circular argument is circular!

lol

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism, if it left fair and open elections intact, would be gone in one cycle -- just as soon as the disastrous economic and personal effects of its program became evident the the democratic electorate.

Circular argument is circular!

lol

It's not circular. I'm not arguing that that is now we know Socialism isn't democratic. I'm pointing out that democracy is incompatible with Socialism. It ruins the essential conditions needed for Socialism to enact its program...which is, by definition, dependent on government, not the people, holding the power and controlling the means of production. Hey, Marx said it. You can believe it or not.

As for the disastrous economic failures and the piles of corpses, when Socialist control the state, they have a 100% record of doing just that. So if you prefer an empirical argument, there it is.

[promethean75]

"program...which is, by definition, dependent on government, not the people, holding the power and controlling the means of production. Hey, Marx said it."

Woah. You think Marx said that someone other than working class people should make up the government?

You must have gotten that out of IC's Incomplete Guide To World History.

[mickthinks]

It's not circular.
Yes it is.

I'm not arguing that that is how we know Socialism isn't democratic.
Yes you are.

I'm pointing out that democracy is incompatible with Socialism.
And your argument goes:

• Socialist policies harm the workers
• The workers would vote out a government which harms them.
• Therefore democracy is incompatible with socialism
• Which is how we know socialist governments aren’t democratic.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm pointing out that democracy is incompatible with Socialism.
And your argument goes:

• Socialist policies harm the workers
• The workers would vote out a government which harms them.
• Therefore democracy is incompatible with socialism

It wasn't even my point in the first place. Go back and read what I actually said.

Before you "correct" somebody's logic, you should learn some logic, maybe. It might help.