Corporation Socialism

[mickthinks]

It wasn't even my point in the first place.

Huh? It was your point when you said it was your point.

I'm pointing out that democracy is incompatible with Socialism.

[Immanuel Can]

It wasn't even my point in the first place.

Huh? It was your point when you said it was your point.

I'm pointing out that democracy is incompatible with Socialism.

Democracy = rule by the people. Socialism = rule by an elite of collectivist ideologues.
Democracy = free elections and choice. Socialism = one party rule.
Democracy = limited governmental power. Socialism = unrestricted government control.
Democracy = personal rights and freedoms. Socialism = the subordination of individual rights and freedoms to the collective.
Democracy = property ownership. Socialism = confiscation by the State.
Democracy = freedom of information. Socialism = ideological propaganda only.
Democracy = profit and capital. Socialism = economic disaster.
Democracy = a way of life. Socialism = the road to death.

Incompatible. There it is.

[Will Bouwman]

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.

Had you managed to reach the end of the sentence without feeling compelled to respond, you wouldn't have asked such a redundant question.

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

Perhaps now, having read the whole sentence, you can answer your own question.

Socialism, by definition, requires government ownership of all the means of production...

That is not a condition of social democracy. If you define socialism in that way then your always absurd depiction of Hitler as a socialist looks even sillier. One of the first things he did as Chancellor was privatise several state owned businesses.

...and a collectivist political program that cannot allow for dissent or departure.

You are confusing the political paranoia of thugs who came to power through brute force, such as Stalin, with the democratic socialism of, for example, Clement Attlee.

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.

You have just made your premise for this thread untenable. If corporation socialism is really a thing, what economic failure is being milked, and where are the bodies?

[mickthinks]

Democracy = rule by the people. Socialism = rule by an elite of collectivist ideologues.
Democracy = free elections and choice. Socialism = one party rule.
Democracy = limited governmental power. Socialism = unrestricted government control.
Democracy = personal rights and freedoms. Socialism = the subordination of individual rights and freedoms to the collective.
Democracy = property ownership. Socialism = confiscation by the State.
Democracy = freedom of information. Socialism = ideological propaganda only.
Democracy = profit and capital. Socialism = economic disaster.
Democracy = a way of life. Socialism = the road to death.

Incompatible. There it is.

A work of fiction. There it is.

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism, by definition, requires government ownership of all the means of production...

That is not a condition of social democracy.

There's no such thing. Drop the "social," and you have an idiom that makes sense. Keep the "Socialism" part in, and you've just got a contradiction.

...and a collectivist political program that cannot allow for dissent or departure.

You are confusing the political paranoia of thugs who came to power through brute force, such as Stalin, with the democratic socialism of, for example, Clement Attlee.

You're going to pretend not to understand, so I expect that. But I know you get it: Attlee had to work within a framework of a free market, "capitalist-style" (to use the Marxist term) economy. If he was any kind of Socialist, he never got to actualize Socialism. It was never the working principle of the economy of the UK. In fact, the UK has never given Socialism control of the economy, which is the sine qua non of Socialism.

You don't get to claim for Socialism the virtues of a system that remained "capitalist." And maybe that's why Socialists are so determined to tack "democratic" onto the front of their name: that democracy has virtues that Socialism completely removes...such as adding value to the economy and maintaining human rights.

If corporation socialism is really a thing, what economic failure is being milked, and where are the bodies?

It hasn't won yet. Corporation Socialism is presently an aspiration, inasmuch as the "capitalist" systems of the West have not given themselves over entirely to it, and resistence to it remains significant. Look at the UK pulling out of the EU, and you'll get the idea. But wherever they have started to give themselves to it, as some European nations like Germany have started to do, we already see creeping failure, misery and tyranny. (Germany's romance with Socialism has been remarkably unhealthy.) Meanwhile, we have plenty of demonstrations of what would happen if it ever did win: Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Albania...and all the rest.

[Immanuel Can]

Democracy = rule by the people. Socialism = rule by an elite of collectivist ideologues.
Democracy = free elections and choice. Socialism = one party rule.
Democracy = limited governmental power. Socialism = unrestricted government control.
Democracy = personal rights and freedoms. Socialism = the subordination of individual rights and freedoms to the collective.
Democracy = property ownership. Socialism = confiscation by the State.
Democracy = freedom of information. Socialism = ideological propaganda only.
Democracy = profit and capital. Socialism = economic disaster.
Democracy = a way of life. Socialism = the road to death.

Incompatible. There it is.

A work of fiction. There it is.

Denial of 100% of the historical evidence. There it is.

[mickthinks]

Democracy = rule by the people. Socialism = rule by an elite of collectivist ideologues.
Democracy = free elections and choice. Socialism = one party rule.
Democracy = limited governmental power. Socialism = unrestricted government control.
Democracy = personal rights and freedoms. Socialism = the subordination of individual rights and freedoms to the collective.
Democracy = property ownership. Socialism = confiscation by the State.
Democracy = freedom of information. Socialism = ideological propaganda only.
Democracy = profit and capital. Socialism = economic disaster.
Democracy = a way of life. Socialism = the road to death.

Incompatible. There it is.

A work of fiction. There it is.

Denial of 100% of the historical evidence. There it is.

That wasn’t a presentation of any evidence, dude.

Feel free to start presenting evidence that there is no such thing as democratic socialism.

[Immanuel Can]

A work of fiction. There it is.

Denial of 100% of the historical evidence. There it is.

That wasn’t a presentation of any evidence, dude.

Dude, the evidence is every Socialist regime that has ever existed. Every single one.

[Impenitent]

good thing the US is a republic

-Imp

[mickthinks]

Dude, the evidence is every Socialist regime that has ever existed. Every single one.

Have we agreed on which regimes are included and which excluded from your analysis? I don’t think so. Are you including Britain, for example? I don’t think so.

You’ve doubled down on your claim so now you need to provide evidence that you have included every single socialist regime that we can agree has ever existed.

[Immanuel Can]

Dude, the evidence is every Socialist regime that has ever existed. Every single one.

Have we agreed on which regimes are included and which excluded from your analysis?

All the ones in which Socialism came to rule the economics and politics.

[mickthinks]

Socialism came to rule the economics and politics.

I’m not clear what “rule the economics” means. Nor “rule the politics”. You are personifying “socialism”. I don’t think socialism has ever ruled anyone anywhere. So as I understand the situation, your list of socialist regimes is empty.

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism came to rule the economics and politics.

I’m not clear what “rule the economics” means.

Sure you are. It means when the Socialists control the political process and the economic strategies. Easy.

Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe...how many more would you like? Disasters, every single one of them. And all Socialist states.

[mickthinks]

It means when the Socialists control the political process and the economic strategies.
As in Britain 1945-51

Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe...
I’m not sure any of those countries has a socialist in charge. Neither are they all failing in the way your thesis requires. But this is a side issue I think.

[Will Bouwman]

Socialism, by definition, requires government ownership of all the means of production...

That is not a condition of social democracy.

There's no such thing.

You're only saying that because for you one of the defining features of socialism is millions of dead bodies. So much so, that you preposterously include Hitler's Nazi Germany, who fail one of your key criteria:

Democracy = property ownership. Socialism = confiscation by the State.

As I have pointed out, Hitler privatised several nationalised industries. However much you believe that death is an inevitable consequence of socialism, it is not a feature that defines it, which public ownership does. If you insist that the Nazis were socialists, because it says so in their name, then you should be compelled to agree that any of the Social Democrat parties that call themselves that really are Social Democrat parties, because it says so in their name. The alternative is special pleading, a fallacy and the sign of a hypocrite, an idiot or both and an absolute guarantee of someone who can't do philosophy to any standard of competence.
Anyway, back to killing. Off the top of my head, the worst example of

Democracy = property ownership.

or

Democracy = profit and capital.

is the East India Company. Estimates for the number of people who died at the hands of this Capitalist enterprise are anything between 40 million and 140 million. Then of course there was their involvement in slavery.

Drop the "social," and you have an idiom that makes sense.

To you. Most people have little difficulty making sense of social democracy.

You are confusing the political paranoia of thugs who came to power through brute force, such as Stalin, with the democratic socialism of, for example, Clement Attlee.

You're going to pretend not to understand, so I expect that. But I know you get it: Attlee had to work within a framework of a free market...

As well as creating the NHS, the Attlee government nationalised coal, electricity, gas, steel, railways, road transport, civil aviation and the Bank of England. That was about a fifth of the economy. Nationalised industries don't kill people, murderous tyrants do. You are not going to pretend not to understand; you really don't understand.