New York City

[accelafine]

''Socialism and Communism are not the same. The main difference is that communism typically advocates for state ownership of all property and resources, while socialism allows for individual property ownership alongside state control of essential services and a more equal distribution of wealth through democratic means.''

That won't really work as a defining difference

Go back to my utopian mode (and consider what you would call something like that)

Why should such a model necessarily preclude some individuals living by themselves, in atomic families, etc.? Maybe six decades ago no but I remember some of the New York Federation of Anarchist folks (left libertarians) meeting with individualist anarchists (right libertarians) to discuss on what things we agreed and on what disagreed. Both sides surprised by how much agreement and that both our visions of what we thought society should be like left room for the other. In other words, THAT came down to a matter of taste, what sort of immediate group we preferred to live in.

Please note that in the 19th Century into the early part of the 20th those terms used more interchangeably than now.

FFS. You are just confusing things unnecessarily. Americans and their effing labels. How does that description 'preclude' people living alone? It doesn't even mention anything like that.
In other words there is no such thing as 'socialism'. It's just a vague term that describes countries with a high overall standard of living (and no, I'm not talking about some tiny state that's populated entirely by billionaires). You're welcome!

[phyllo]

For the record and unless he recently moved to Australia ...

IC lives in the socialist/communist utopia/dystopia known as Canada.

[Immanuel Can]

Define "more Socialist." How does a country become "more Socialist" than yours? What are the symptoms you're detecting?

THAT is precisely why I say you should look at what the individualist anarchists say, look at their analysis. They will be pointing to what they identify as elements of socialism in the most capitalist/non-socialist of our societies.

That's not enough to justify calling a society "Socialist." Definitionally, a Socialist state must "seize control of the means of production." Does the country in question have Socialism in charge of generating funds, or only in charge of wasting the funds generated by 'capitalist' means? That's the question, really.

For example, Norway, often held up by dishonest or ill-informed Leftists as a model of Socialism, has social programs, but funds them entirely off their oil supplies, which are sold on the 'capitalist' market to generate capital that no Socialist strategy could ever produce. If a so-called "Socialist" country is not applying Socialism to its broad economics, and in fact, to all areas of life, in theory, then it's not Socialism. It's merely a case of some social programs living parasitically off 'capitalist' enterprise. This would be true of other places, too, like Canada, or Australia, or Denmark, or Sweden...'capitalism' runs the economic system and generates the value that the social programs could not survive without, and which they syphon off.

So no, Socialism isn't a "matter of degree." It's a matter of who controls the means of production. If a country does not use Socialist economics, then by definition, it's not Socialism. Socialist theory makes that clear.

However, if you want to see the difference between Socialism and free markets, just consider the perfect experiment, which is already in motion. Same culture, same geography, same genetics, same history, same language...but one Socialist system (with Socialism genuinely running the state and the economy) and the other a free market system. And the place? North and South Korea.

There, the difference is stark.

[accelafine]

For the record and unless he recently moved to Australia ...

IC lives in the socialist/communist utopia/dystopia known as Canada.

Any evidence for that? He does like to cultivate an air of mystery.

[phyllo]

I'll go with this:

I always assumed you were from the USA, but when you started talking about places in England I wondered if I'd got it wrong and you were actually from here. That's all it was about, but you say you are not in the UK, so that sorts that out. I'm sorry for prying.

IC wrote :
You're not prying. I just try to keep my personal details out of philosophical discussion, because I have a tendency to say things that Politicallly Correct types resent.Besides, a man should be believed because his argument is good, not because of where he lives, what he does, or who he is. So I deliberately keep my profile vague.

Nope, not the USA. Not the UK. What's left that has elements of both?

viewtopic.php?p=586333#p586333

[accelafine]

Lucky him if it's Canada then. When all that awful 'socialist' accessible health care and high standard of living gets too much for him he can just have himself euthanised.

[Immanuel Can]

Lucky him if it's Canada then. When all that awful 'socialist' accessible health care and high standard of living gets too much for him he can just have himself euthanised.

Unfortunately for your theory, Canada's not even close to Socialist. Neither, as somebody else pointed out, is Australia. Nor are the Nordic countries normally cited as such...they have limited social programs for things like health, retirement and maybe education, but their whole economies run on free market principles, 'capitalism', personal property, private enterprise, and all the things that Socialists both detest and depend upon for their "high standards of living." Even China could not make Socialism work, and has had to opt for what they call "Red Capitalism."

Do you know who has a Socialist economy? North Korea. Zimbabwe. Cuba. Go there, if you want to see what Socialism actually does. You won't be singing about "high standards of living," trust me.

[accelafine]

Lucky him if it's Canada then. When all that awful 'socialist' accessible health care and high standard of living gets too much for him he can just have himself euthanised.

Unfortunately for your theory, Canada's not even close to Socialist. Neither, as somebody else pointed out, is Australia. Nor are the Nordic countries normally cited as such...they have limited social programs for things like health, retirement and maybe education, but their whole economies run on free market principles, 'capitalism', personal property, private enterprise, and all the things that Socialists both detest and depend upon for their "high standards of living." Even China could not make Socialism work, and has had to opt for what they call "Red Capitalism."

Do you know who has a Socialist economy? North Korea. Zimbabwe. Cuba. Go there, if you want to see what Socialism actually does. You won't be singing about "high standards of living," trust me.

Since you refuse to define 'socialism' (despite constantly claiming that you have in 'previous posts' ) then just shut the fuck up about it.

[accelafine]

I'll go with this:

I always assumed you were from the USA, but when you started talking about places in England I wondered if I'd got it wrong and you were actually from here. That's all it was about, but you say you are not in the UK, so that sorts that out. I'm sorry for prying.

IC wrote :
You're not prying. I just try to keep my personal details out of philosophical discussion, because I have a tendency to say things that Politicallly Correct types resent.Besides, a man should be believed because his argument is good, not because of where he lives, what he does, or who he is. So I deliberately keep my profile vague.

Nope, not the USA. Not the UK. What's left that has elements of both?

viewtopic.php?p=586333#p586333

Could just as easily be Australia.

[phyllo]

So the fearmongering about Mamdani turning NY socialist is way off.

As is all the fearmongering about the US becoming Marxist, communist, socialist if they have universal healthcare, or DEI or food stamps or any number of government funded programs.

[Immanuel Can]

Lucky him if it's Canada then. When all that awful 'socialist' accessible health care and high standard of living gets too much for him he can just have himself euthanised.

Unfortunately for your theory, Canada's not even close to Socialist. Neither, as somebody else pointed out, is Australia. Nor are the Nordic countries normally cited as such...they have limited social programs for things like health, retirement and maybe education, but their whole economies run on free market principles, 'capitalism', personal property, private enterprise, and all the things that Socialists both detest and depend upon for their "high standards of living." Even China could not make Socialism work, and has had to opt for what they call "Red Capitalism."

Do you know who has a Socialist economy? North Korea. Zimbabwe. Cuba. Go there, if you want to see what Socialism actually does. You won't be singing about "high standards of living," trust me.

Since you refuse to define 'socialism' (despite constantly claiming that you have in 'previous posts' ) then just shut the fuck up about it.

Yeah...that'll be happening.

[Age]

Sure, blame the sick and poor for being sick and poor.

Are you going to advertise your Diet and Exercise Program now?

I live in a culture of people who are widely “sick and poor”. Their diets are bad, though they have access to healthy produce, and they remain in poverty because they have not been taught how to build wealth.

If you want to be realistic you have to teach people how to turn things around.

Your attitude will do nothing. My attitude will do everything. Your attitude is part of the problem, mine a route to solving it.

Does 'your attitude' include explaining what the 'actual problem' is, exactly, and then explaining what the 'actual route' to 'solving it' is, exactly?

If yes, then great, will you now do this?

If no, then why not?

Did you not read Subsection 4 and 5 of my Third Book?!?

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!

Why? What is 'the matter' with you, people, exactly?

[Age]

"Well, you did him no harm and you fucked yourself out of a lucrative project"

Who needs lucrative projects? Really, it was the county codes that did it. I refuse to put anchor bolts in my pier footings. They're a big pain in the ass and totally unnecessary unless you're building the deck on the San Andreas faultline. And neither will i make my footer holes EXACTLY 16x16x16. I'm gonna dig a fuckin hole about a foot and a half deep, drop the post in there and pour two bags of crete in it. And guess what? That post isn't going to move for a hundred years.

So, contrary to what you said and claimed earlier, you actually did not just pass up an easy $2,300 deck and pergola because the guy pissed you off, right?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Any evidence for that? He does like to cultivate an air of mystery.

I happen to know for a fact that IC resides in North Korea, in palace-like accommodations provided by the Supreme Ruler.

Get your facts straight people.

[Age]

Do they have an alternate? No.

*

Trump said get rid of Obamacare and give the money back to the people so they can provide their own healthcare for themselves.

Which goes to show just how stupid some people really are.

Or, do even those who have no money, still, really have to pay money for their own healthcare, "themselves"?

When will it become clear and obvious that those with 'extra money' just 'chip in', as some might say, some of that 'extra money' in order to make things like support, aid, healthcare, and education accessible to absolutely every one, on a much more 'level playing field'?