UK to lower voting age to 16

[Immanuel Can]

I am getting sick and tired of your"if the facts don't fit my theory, deny the facts".

I haven't seen any relevance of the facts you're listing. Maybe what you need to do is explain what you mean by "Socialist."

That's a very curious oversight on your part: twice I've asked you for a simple definition. I gave you mine. But I've got nothing in return. So I have no idea what you even think a "Socialist" is.

Are you going to define your own most basic term?

I think your frustration will go away when you do.

BUT if you are asking ME for a definition of Socialism/Communism,

Just Socialism, as you see it. And be brief, please, as I have been. I want clarity, not obscurantism or evasion of the task in hand.

IC, you have made very clear by YOUR definition...

No, yours. I would like yours. You've been dodging it. But it's only fair that since I've given mine, you give yours.

Go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Immanuel Can]

So, IC. Elon Musk is the richest man on the planet. Do you think Elon Musk "earned" his billions?

I'm not Elon's judge. I certainly didn't do the number of things he's done. Perhaps he's earned it. I wouldn't know, and it's in no way my business. If he is doing well, I should be happy for him, not green-eyed and petty. What harm does his achievement do to me?

But now, let me reverse the question, and put to you Thomas Sowell's dilemma.

You Socialists always think you can just "tax the rich." You think you can simply "redistribute" what Elon or others have managed to acquire (by fair or foul means, I have no way to know and cannot judge).

But tell me; exactly how would that process unfold? What are the steps by which we can move from Elon having billions to those billions being redistributed to the general populace. Give us the how-to of that plan.

Hello, Gary...where'd you go?

It's a serious question. I'm just asking you how, if you want Elon's billions, we can go about getting them for you. Give us the plan.

[MikeNovack]

An idea, IC.

It might be easier to understand why I would have such a very different definition (leftism/socialism/communism) than you if we stepped back to look at yours, what I think you are defining. In other words, I think you are offering a good definition of a SUBSET of "leftism, socialism, communism", a very important subset. So let's look at that. And to make it easier, for the moment we'll just consider the Marxists, which again, I consider a subset, you the whole set. In other words, for the moment, we'll just consider the Marxists.

Starting about 1900 a split occurred among the Marxists. Because the usual terminology for the two "sides" are the terms in Russian, Bolshevik and Menshevik, I'll use the 1903 Second Party Conference << but the same split was taking place among Marxists elsewhere >>

Do you recognize this? I am saying your definition of "leftism/socialism/communism" is a good one for the Bolsheviks and their descendants. But what do you call the descendants of the Mensheviks? They are still Marxists, yes? But do they fit your definition? Do you claim that they do not exist?

To be explicit, I am saying the set Marxists contains two subsets, the bolsheviks and the non-bolsheviks. Are you trying to say the subset non-bolsheviks is empty? Again, though I am using the 1903 Second Party Conference in Russia to name these "sides", this split was occurring throughout communism at about that time. Lenin's 1920 Polemic would be addressing those outside of Russia since he had more or less purged them within Russia. But useful for us to use his term, the "left wing communists".

[Immanuel Can]

An idea, IC.

It might be easier to understand why I would have such a very different definition (leftism/socialism/communism) than you if we stepped back to look at yours, what I think you are defining.

It will actually prove impossible, if you do not give your definition of Socialism. Nobody can compare one thing, and we have only one definition right now.

Now, do you have a definition, or do you want to give up?

[MikeNovack]

You are hopeless, IC.

I am not going to bother until/unless you are willing to discuss WHAT is being defined. SCOPE. I more or less agree with your definition IF we are trying to define/describe the bolsheviks and their descendants. The bolsheviks and their descendants are a SUBSET of "leftism/socialism/communism".

To ME your logic is A's are B's A's are C's, therefore B's are C's << and that of course is bad logic >>

If you are saying that ALL "leftists, socialists, communists" are "bolsheviks and their descendants" defend that.

[Immanuel Can]

You are hopeless, IC.

All I asked your for was the most reasonable thing I could possibly ask. I asked you to tell me what you meant. I asked for your definition of your terms.

If you can't do it, then it's not because you can't do philosophy. It's not because you don't have something in mind, obviously. It's not because what I'm asking is at all unreasonable or unfair. It's because you don't WANT to, for some reason you won't say.

You could be embarassed of your own weak definition, maybe. Or you could know it's vulnerable, and not want to put it out there. Or it's maybe because you've never really wanted to think of what Socialism involves. I can't say.

But there's something highly suspicious about your reticence. It means you know there's something about it you don't want exposed. Whatever your view is, you don't have confidence in it. That much, anybody can see.

So you don't really have a defensible definition of "Socialism," for some reason. Maybe you should get one, then...or a better one than you've allowed yourself hitherto.

Let me know when you've got one.

[Immanuel Can]

@IC

A definition of "socialism":

Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for greater equality and wealth distribution. It prioritizes social welfare over private profit, often featuring government planning to meet basic needs like education and healthcare, rather than relying solely on market forces.

This isn't whatever Mike believes. If it were, he would surely have given it.

Yes, Gary, I find that definition fair. It might not be quite complete or quite forthcoming, but it's adequate for a first try. I've mentioned two key elements Marx himself identified: first, the elimination of private property, which Marx said was the perfect summary of what Socialism was about. Then I also mentioned the collectivization of the means of production, which he harps on later. Both are key elements.

Why Mike can't do it, I have no idea...unless he's trying to sneak into his own definition of Socialism something that is controversial in some way, so as to weasel out of the above elements. But if that's what he's doing, why is he even trying to be a Socialist, since those two elements are absolutely essential to Socialism. (There's other stuff, of course; like the definition fails to mention that Socialism requires the violent and sudden theft, and doesn't result in "redistribution" to the poor, but rather to concentration of wealth in the hands of the Marxist elites, but we can't expect them to be honest about that, can we? After all, they're Socialists, and they're on an extravagant ideological sales-pitch, not a humble admission of fault.)

So what does Mike think is the basic nature of Socialism? He won't say. He keeps saying it depends on somebody else's agreement -- mine, ironically. But we can both see that's just not forthcoming. He's trying to avoid some serious flaw in his own thinking that he doesn't want exposed, obviously.

[MikeNovack]

[Why Mike can't do it, I have no idea...unless he's trying to sneak into his own definition of Socialism something that is controversial in some way, so as to weasel out of the above elements. But if that's what he's doing, why is he even trying to be a Socialist, since those two elements are absolutely essential to Socialism.

The purpose of a definition is to partition a set into two subsets, those that qualify according to that definition, and those that don't. That initial set isn't everything (except in a pure logic sense) but that part of everything, the domain over which we consider it meaningful to ask "meets the criteria" or "doesn't.

I can see we are NOT in agreement about the appropriate domain.

I am probably not a "leftist/socialist/communist" by YOUR definition but your asking "then why do I use the term" is STUPID. You really do this all too much, IC, act like WE accept your beliefs and then ask "why".

I'll repeat, what does YOUR definition say about the Christian communalists? When you say not "leftists/socialists/communists" isn't that really because you consider them outside the domain to which appropriate to apply the test? That your definition doesn't have to seriously consider them. Well that is why I disagree, and why I say we need to settle domain issues before I give you my definition << which would certainly encompass them, also secular or mixed communalists, also "democratic socialists", etc. etc.

[Immanuel Can]

[Why Mike can't do it, I have no idea...unless he's trying to sneak into his own definition of Socialism something that is controversial in some way, so as to weasel out of the above elements. But if that's what he's doing, why is he even trying to be a Socialist, since those two elements are absolutely essential to Socialism.

The purpose of a definition is to partition a set into two subsets, those that qualify according to that definition, and those that don't.

We can't do that. You haven't provided us with any definition. We can't use a "nothing" to divide anything.

I can see we are NOT in agreement about the appropriate domain.

I can't. I don't have your definition. It's locked inside your head, so I can't tell what you believe.

Now, let's have your definition. And if you've got none, just go ahead and say so.

[MikeNovack]

I will try ONCE more.

MAYBE more formal set language will help.

We are trying to provide a definition for a set of ideologies, the set of "leftist, socialist, communist" ideologies. Let's call that set S. Now within that set S there is a subset of ideologies which is often designated state socialism/state communism so let's call that SS. This is an important subset on the world stage. I would say that your definition for that subset is not terrible. I might disagree in detail but substantially agree with you on that.

Our difference is whether SS = S. I say you are defining SS, not the entire set S. You say you are defining S, equivalent to arguing that the subset "in S but not in SS" is empty. I disagree. I am saying there exist ideologies within S that are not in SS. So while your definition may be good for SS it is not good for S.

Explain WHY you are arguing SS = S. I can understand you taking the position that because SS is important on the world stage you want to ignore those in S but not SS (that all the not SS members of S are unimportant). But that is different than saying they do not exist. You can't be saying silly things like "people who claim to hold an ideology in S MUST be holding an ideology in SS".

That is why I am asking you to examine/explain ideologies clearly not in SS. How do you want to classify these? Saying "not in S because not matching my definition of SS is not an answer.

[Immanuel Can]

I will try ONCE more.

Let me help:

"Socialism" (sōSHəˌlizəm: noun, abstract) -- "a political ideology in which..."

There. I've done everything I can to help you answer a simple question. I can do no more.

[MikeNovack]

Did you perhaps mean to ask "an ideology is a socialist ideology if......." << what makes it a member of the set of socialist ideologies >>

I am disagreeing that socialism is a single thing. I am saying that there is a range of things that are socialist.

It is why you are puzzled by a person claiming to be a socialist while at the same time denying a particular version of socialism?. You think it is some single ideology?

[Immanuel Can]

I am disagreeing that socialism is a single thing.

Then you are disagreeing with everybody else. You're not talking about "Socialism" at all. Socialism is a thing, and things have definitions. There can be a bunch of similar things, but they're all similar. Identify the similar.

Stop squirming. Nobody believes you can't do it.

[MikeNovack]

alism" at all. Socialism is a thing, and things have definitions. There can be a bunch of similar things, but they're all similar. Identify the similar.

I take it you have never been at a meeting/panel/discussion with a number of socialists each representing a different thread of the socialist spectrum. Or during lunch break, over lunch talking one on one to identify where might be in agreement in spite of being in radically different threads. << or maybe not just "socialists but a group of left anarchist (collectivist) and right anarchist (individualist) doing the same thing -- BTW, surprising amount of agreement>>

YES there are things in common, similar. But I can see by your definition that you are way off the track. For the specific thread state socialist/state communist (you are just saying socialist/communist) much in your definition is correct but instead of being "in common" are things I would be using distinguishing between threads.

I strongly suspect that its importance on the world stage has caused you to see THIS thread as the only thread worth considering. That's OK until/unless you reverse that to say "anyone of any of those other threads is really of this one". Importance on the world stage is not the only criteria by which we judge ideologies.

A secondary problem is that you don't believe secularists can have morality. What would you make of me making a claim like a key identifier for communism is the moral precept "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" <<practical import -- were I working to promote a project involving equal contribution or equal distribution I need to anticipate opposition from a "communist" >>

[Immanuel Can]

alism" at all. Socialism is a thing, and things have definitions. There can be a bunch of similar things, but they're all similar. Identify the similar.

I take it you have never been at a meeting/panel/discussion with a number of socialists each representing a different thread of the socialist spectrum.

I take it that you're avoiding defining, either because you are embarassed of your own definition, or else because my definition, which was from Marx, is just dandy, and you don't want to say so. To avoid this, you're citing examples, and trying to justify committing to no definition, so you can't be caught out.

But that doesn't work. Because if you didn't ALREADY have a definition in mind, even if a bad, underformed definition, you would be unable to know whether X or Y was an example of Socialism at all!

Get it? The definition always comes first. You always have one, even if only inchoately or subconsciously. And you owe us all to make it explicit...to say what you mean, before you throw up what you consider "examples." Only afterward can we discuss whether or not your examples are relevant, because without your definition, neither you nor we can possibly know.

So be fair: give your definition, the one you're using or assuming. If you've never thought about it, think about it right now. Make it explicit.