Fabianism

[Gary Childress]

People who are ideologically-possessed make no sense. You're right. The Neo-Marxists are addicted to a hopeless task. They're trying to rescue a failed pseudo-economic, quasi-religious theory, Marxism. But it can't be done. That they refuse to see that, merely shows how ideologically-possessed they are.

Unfortunately, they're so crazed they take us all down with their devotion to a failed and suicidal utopian theory, if they can.

This is precisely the point. Marx imagined that the temporary travails of the Industrial Revolution were a profound and persistent set of conditions. They weren't. They were temporary. The antipathy between the proles and the bourgeoisie, the mercantile middle class, was going to be dissolved by advancing social conditions as industrialism developed. Prosperity was going to spread. The lower classes were going to move up, not merely into the level of the industrial middle class, but up the the level of the modern middle class...which is a level no industrial bourgeois ever enjoyed. Look at our technologies now. Look at our health care. Look at our subsidies. Look at our wages. Look at our educational benefits. Look at our middle-class consumption of goods. Look at our food supply. Nobody, not even the rich, in the Industrial Revolution enjoyed such prosperity as we do, even when we keep thinking of ourselves as ordinary or underprivileged.

Marx foresaw none of this. He was simply deeply wrong. Nothing of what he predicted came true. Even Russia, which is where Marx's revolution eventually broke out, did it in a non-Marxian way: for Marx had insisted that the necessary sequence went, feudalism, capitalism, revolution, Socialism. But Russia jumped from monarchy and feudalism straight into the Socialist project. Marx thought that could not happen, which is why he predicted revolution for England, not Russia.

The guy just never got anything right, really. So Neo-Marxists have their work cut out for them, trying to rescue a theory that has no validation. But they keep trying; and yes, that's irrational, and yes, that's impossible. But it never stops them trying.

Look at yourself: did you know Marxism has all those flaws? If you did, would you be campaigning for it? Or do you overlook those flaws, and imagine Marx was still right, and push him anyway? Irrational, perhaps it is; but it's unfortunately all too common, as well.

The only thing that happened under capitalism is that the underclass was exported to the third world.

How on earth did you come up with such unhistorical rubbish, Gary? No such thing ever happened.

EVERYTHING the uber wealthy touch politically turns to shit.

Including the welfare system? They pretty much are the only reason it can exist at all. Government has no money: it taxes the value created by others, or it would be penniless. The poor have no money, so they can't provide what's necessary, either. The middle classes, which are the top 10% of the world's wealthy, and the 1% of the very rich are the only source of the funds you so desperately need in order keep social programs, or to have anything with which to impose Socialism, for that matter.

Even such perverse and Fabian organizations as the WEF have bowed to this inescapable fact: that unless they can pillage "capitalism," or business, they will never have the resources for any of their intended programs. And how long do you think you get to have eggs, once you've killed the golden goose?

We're the lap dogs, the "house slaves" as Malcolm X put it.

Malcolm X was a foolish man. He was so foolish, in fact, that he converted to Islam...and was later murdered by the same Islamists he made out to be his brothers. Have you never read his biography? The guy didn't know what he was talking about. He was all about ginning up exactly the same addictions you and the rest of the Left are still struggling with: racism, grievance culture, hatred, bitterness, and loads and loads of greed and envy. And he died as a fool dies; under the delusion that he was a saint of some kind.

And you wonder why neither they, the Left, nor you are ever happy? They have no gratitude, no appreciation of what they already have, and no thankfulness for how they got it. They're just preoccupied with covetousness for what they don't have yet, and think they can get by way of revolution. No wonder they're miserable, hateful people. Just look at them, cursing the world, refusing to listen to any contradiction, marching in the streets and throwing bricks, or beating up Korean shopkeepers and policemen in the name of "liberation." And look at the desolation they leave behind, wherever their "actions" take place. They don't know what gratitude is.

Ceiling tiles, Gary. Remember the ceiling tiles.

I guess you're right, IC. I'm insane. I don't know shit from a pile of pearls. But I'd rather not die horribly. So I'll shut up before your buddies, the wealthy, shut me up the old fashioned mafia way.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess you're right, IC. I'm insane. I don't know shit from a pile of pearls. But I'd rather not die horribly. So I'll shut up before your buddies, the wealthy, shut me up the old fashioned mafia way.

Yeah, that won't be happening, Gary. They don't do that, nor need to. That's the Left.

Have you noticed that today, all the censorship comes from the Left? All the "deplatforming" and "silencing" and "erasure"?

[Gary Childress]

I guess you're right, IC. I'm insane. I don't know shit from a pile of pearls. But I'd rather not die horribly. So I'll shut up before your buddies, the wealthy, shut me up the old fashioned mafia way.

Yeah, that won't be happening, Gary. They don't do that, nor need to. That's the Left.

Have you noticed that today, all the censorship comes from the Left? All the "deplatforming" and "silencing" and "erasure"?

If the right gets it's way and gives the uber-wealthy free reign, don't think that the same things won't be happening to us that are happening in the third world. The wealthy are perfectly willing to use force to get their way. And if they can't have government in their pocket, they'll pay thugs to silence their critics. So it's probably better to have a government that is accountable to the people than to leave the wealthy to pursue their interests unchallenged. Or heck, maybe we should just let the wealthy lead the way. Let them get what they want. Take away government restriants. Take away the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) so that food producers can cheat and cut corners when they need to sell their product. Take away the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) so that ordinary people aren't protected from epidemics. That would be fine for the wealthy, they get top medical care as a default. Take away government run aviation safety. Well, maybe not. The uber wealthy can't fly their private jets without safety constraints on everyone. So I guess that makes ordinary people and the wealthy equal.

The truth, Polly Anne, is that the wealthy will not depart from government unless they think it's getting in their way and not doing what they want it to do. Therefore, a truly democratic government that listens to ordinary people is the enemy. So you want to get rid of the uber-wealthy's tools, but you don't want to get rid of them. That's fine. I guess we can't let the ordinary riffraff take over government. We'll just farm out the corrections department. Let private owners run prisons and hire their own police.

That's what is going to happen if you take away the ability of ordinary people to have a say in their lives through democratic government. But you don't want a democratic government. You just want the wealthy to be wealthy. I guess we'll all have to settle for an oligarchy to make you happy. But maybe it's not so bad. Wealth will eventually "trickle down" to the third world.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess you're right, IC. I'm insane. I don't know shit from a pile of pearls. But I'd rather not die horribly. So I'll shut up before your buddies, the wealthy, shut me up the old fashioned mafia way.

Yeah, that won't be happening, Gary. They don't do that, nor need to. That's the Left.

Have you noticed that today, all the censorship comes from the Left? All the "deplatforming" and "silencing" and "erasure"?

If the right gets it's way and gives the uber-wealthy free reign,

I think you mean "rein," don't you? But no, this is merely a Socialist myth, intended to increase support for Socialism. In fact, many on the right are Classical Liberals, moderate Democrats, or even Libertarians. So that's not the case at all.

The wealthy are perfectly willing to use force to get their way. And if they can't have government in their pocket, they'll pay thugs to silence their critics.

Where has this happened, Gary?

The truth, Polly Anne,

I think you mean "Pollyanna"?

You really need to work on your insults.

Therefore, a truly democratic government that listens to ordinary people is the enemy.

And you think Socialism is that "democratic government that listens to ordinary people"? Where has that been the case, Gary?

But you don't want a democratic government.

That's exactly what I do want, Gary. I want the practice of politicians being subject to their constituents every four years to be continued perpetually. But Socialism can't have that: it needs total hegemony, or its projects cannot succeed. So Socialism is necessarily totalitarian and anti-democratic. It has to be.

[Gary Childress]

But you don't want a democratic government.

That's exactly what I do want, Gary. I want the practice of politicians being subject to their constituents every four years to be continued perpetually. But Socialism can't have that: it needs total hegemony, or its projects cannot succeed. So Socialism is necessarily totalitarian and anti-democratic. It has to be.

The same applies to propertarianism/capitalism. If a person is a socialist and not a propertarian, then the capitalist must prevent the anti-propertarian/socialist from winning. Any coherent political process demands adherence to the process that is being advocated for.

[phyllo]

This is what strikes me as so silly about Trump-hate, or TDS, as it is called: does the Left actually think that all evil resides conveniently in one man? Have they no moral perspective on the fact of more general fallibility and corruption? Do they think that if they kill one guy, the world will turn to gumdrops and candyfloss for everybody? Do they not see that even worse men may well be waiting in the wings, waiting to take over? For if the world can produce one evil man (let us say, Trump), can it not produce another? And cannot it produce a thousand even more evil ones? Is Trump literally the worst politician the world has ever known?

What a ridiculous distortion.

"The Left" doesn't like Putin, Orban, Netanyahu, the leaders of Iran, lots of politician around the world ...

"one evil man" ... nonsense.

[Immanuel Can]

But you don't want a democratic government.

That's exactly what I do want, Gary. I want the practice of politicians being subject to their constituents every four years to be continued perpetually. But Socialism can't have that: it needs total hegemony, or its projects cannot succeed. So Socialism is necessarily totalitarian and anti-democratic. It has to be.

The same applies to propertarianism/capitalism.

Actually, it doesn't. Business, industry, markets...all can operate within democratic institutions, and all do fine with government oversight, so long as the government doesn't interfere with honest work.

But Socialism cannot allow any rival institutions to interrupt its program of controlling all the means of production. And it cannot allow a rival political party that is not Socialist to take over every second four-year span, and undo all the things it tries to do. So it has to become totalitarian.

But as you can see from the US, there's a fairly large ability within a generally free-market, democratic system for tolerating institutions like welfare programs, public works or reasonable subsidies. You've got lots of such things. They don't much interrupt the overall democratic flow. And they don't require some special, exclusive, anti-democratic process, or totalitarian control.

But Socialism does.

[Gary Childress]

That's exactly what I do want, Gary. I want the practice of politicians being subject to their constituents every four years to be continued perpetually. But Socialism can't have that: it needs total hegemony, or its projects cannot succeed. So Socialism is necessarily totalitarian and anti-democratic. It has to be.

The same applies to propertarianism/capitalism.

Actually, it doesn't. Business, industry, markets...all can operate within democratic institutions, and all do fine with government oversight, so long as the government doesn't interfere with honest work.

But Socialism cannot allow any rival institutions to interrupt its program of controlling all the means of production. And it cannot allow a rival political party that is not Socialist to take over every second four-year span, and undo all the things it tries to do. So it has to become totalitarian.

But as you can see from the US, there's a fairly large ability within a generally free-market, democratic system for tolerating institutions like welfare programs, public works or reasonable subsidies. You've got lots of such things. They don't much interrupt the overall democratic flow. And they don't require some special, exclusive, anti-democratic process, or totalitarian control.

But Socialism does.

That's because you don't believe that uber-wealth can affect democracy. You think the uber-wealthy don't control the world. And yet you don't want them to control the world, but you won't do anything to control that which is giving them control of the world, their unreasonably extensive wealth. You just want more of the same. Fair enough. Change is a scary thing. We all have something to lose from it.

[Immanuel Can]

The same applies to propertarianism/capitalism.

Actually, it doesn't. Business, industry, markets...all can operate within democratic institutions, and all do fine with government oversight, so long as the government doesn't interfere with honest work.

But Socialism cannot allow any rival institutions to interrupt its program of controlling all the means of production. And it cannot allow a rival political party that is not Socialist to take over every second four-year span, and undo all the things it tries to do. So it has to become totalitarian.

But as you can see from the US, there's a fairly large ability within a generally free-market, democratic system for tolerating institutions like welfare programs, public works or reasonable subsidies. You've got lots of such things. They don't much interrupt the overall democratic flow. And they don't require some special, exclusive, anti-democratic process, or totalitarian control.

But Socialism does.

That's because you don't believe that uber-wealth can affect democracy.

You're making stuff up, Gary...I said no such thing. Anybody can corrupt democracy, and any political scheme can fail. Big government and big business are both interested in subverting democracy. But so are many others, like totalitarians, and Fascists and other Socialists. Democracy is a thing vulnerable to its own internal challenges, such as the possibility that the majority will turn out to vote for something stupid or totalitarian. It's just a risk democracy takes, because there's no alternative to letting the people have a free choice -- even when that choice sometimes proves foolish.

But Socialists can't have democracy at all. They can't stand for it, because it lets people choose not-Socialism, which could be anything from constitutional democracy all the way out to total Libertarian anarchism. Socialism cannot allow rivals. It's totalitarian by nature.

[Gary Childress]

Actually, it doesn't. Business, industry, markets...all can operate within democratic institutions, and all do fine with government oversight, so long as the government doesn't interfere with honest work.

But Socialism cannot allow any rival institutions to interrupt its program of controlling all the means of production. And it cannot allow a rival political party that is not Socialist to take over every second four-year span, and undo all the things it tries to do. So it has to become totalitarian.

But as you can see from the US, there's a fairly large ability within a generally free-market, democratic system for tolerating institutions like welfare programs, public works or reasonable subsidies. You've got lots of such things. They don't much interrupt the overall democratic flow. And they don't require some special, exclusive, anti-democratic process, or totalitarian control.

But Socialism does.

That's because you don't believe that uber-wealth can affect democracy.

You're making stuff up, Gary...I said no such thing. Anybody can corrupt democracy, and any political scheme can fail. Big government and big business are both interested in subverting democracy. But so are many others, like totalitarians, and Fascists and other Socialists. Democracy is a thing vulnerable to its own internal challenges, such as the possibility that the majority will turn out to vote for something stupid or totalitarian. It's just a risk democracy takes, because there's no alternative to letting the people have a free choice -- even when that choice sometimes proves foolish.

But Socialists can't have democracy at all. They can't stand for it, because it lets people choose not-Socialism, which could be anything from constitutional democracy all the way out to total Libertarian anarchism. Socialism cannot allow rivals. It's totalitarian by nature.

If a socialist society limits wealth accumulation and elects leaders through democratic processes, then how is that not democratic? You make shit up like crazy to support your views. Reality is around you, but like your God, you can't see it in front of your face.

[Immanuel Can]

That's because you don't believe that uber-wealth can affect democracy.

You're making stuff up, Gary...I said no such thing. Anybody can corrupt democracy, and any political scheme can fail. Big government and big business are both interested in subverting democracy. But so are many others, like totalitarians, and Fascists and other Socialists. Democracy is a thing vulnerable to its own internal challenges, such as the possibility that the majority will turn out to vote for something stupid or totalitarian. It's just a risk democracy takes, because there's no alternative to letting the people have a free choice -- even when that choice sometimes proves foolish.

But Socialists can't have democracy at all. They can't stand for it, because it lets people choose not-Socialism, which could be anything from constitutional democracy all the way out to total Libertarian anarchism. Socialism cannot allow rivals. It's totalitarian by nature.

If a socialist society limits wealth accumulation and elects leaders through democratic processes,

It does neither.

It limits the ability of people to make their own living better, but doesn't limit the elites from grabbing all the goods and power. Socialist regimes are always presided over by a soviet, or elite class, or party apparatchiks, or even by a dictator (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) and tyrannize the ordinary person by depriving him or her of any ability to add value to his own situation. It has a 100% record of doing just that.

And it cannot, repeat, cannot allow democratic processes, because it cannot endure Socialism being voted out.

[Gary Childress]

You're making stuff up, Gary...I said no such thing. Anybody can corrupt democracy, and any political scheme can fail. Big government and big business are both interested in subverting democracy. But so are many others, like totalitarians, and Fascists and other Socialists. Democracy is a thing vulnerable to its own internal challenges, such as the possibility that the majority will turn out to vote for something stupid or totalitarian. It's just a risk democracy takes, because there's no alternative to letting the people have a free choice -- even when that choice sometimes proves foolish.

But Socialists can't have democracy at all. They can't stand for it, because it lets people choose not-Socialism, which could be anything from constitutional democracy all the way out to total Libertarian anarchism. Socialism cannot allow rivals. It's totalitarian by nature.

If a socialist society limits wealth accumulation and elects leaders through democratic processes,

It does neither.

It limits the ability of people to make their own living better, but doesn't limit the elites from grabbing all the goods and power. Socialist regimes are always presided over by a soviet, or elite class, or party apparatchiks, or even by a dictator (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) and tyrannize the ordinary person by depriving him or her of any ability to add value to his own situation. It has a 100% record of doing just that.

And it cannot, repeat, cannot allow democratic processes, because it cannot endure Socialism being voted out.

Neither can democracy be tolerated by propertarians. You will not tolerate citizens voting to limit property accumulation. How is that democratic of you?

[Immanuel Can]

If a socialist society limits wealth accumulation and elects leaders through democratic processes,

It does neither.

It limits the ability of people to make their own living better, but doesn't limit the elites from grabbing all the goods and power. Socialist regimes are always presided over by a soviet, or elite class, or party apparatchiks, or even by a dictator (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) and tyrannize the ordinary person by depriving him or her of any ability to add value to his own situation. It has a 100% record of doing just that.

And it cannot, repeat, cannot allow democratic processes, because it cannot endure Socialism being voted out.

Neither can democracy be tolerated by propertarians.

Actually it very easily can. Everybody is allowed to keep his or her own property, so long as it has been legitimately and honestly earned, and vote for whomever he/she wishes, so long as the party in question does not eliminate democracy. Meanwhile, nobody can be robbed in the name of "collectivism," or made to pay for layabouts, or deprived of a chance to make his/her own life better, or to start a business...

That's very democratic. I don't see any problem at all with that.

[Gary Childress]

It does neither.

It limits the ability of people to make their own living better, but doesn't limit the elites from grabbing all the goods and power. Socialist regimes are always presided over by a soviet, or elite class, or party apparatchiks, or even by a dictator (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) and tyrannize the ordinary person by depriving him or her of any ability to add value to his own situation. It has a 100% record of doing just that.

And it cannot, repeat, cannot allow democratic processes, because it cannot endure Socialism being voted out.

Neither can democracy be tolerated by propertarians.

Actually it very easily can. Everybody is allowed to keep his or her own property, so long as it has been legitimately and honestly earned, and vote for whomever he/she wishes, so long as the party in question does not eliminate democracy. Meanwhile, nobody can be robbed in the name of "collectivism," or made to pay for layabouts, or deprived of a chance to make his/her own life better, or to start a business...

That's very democratic. I don't see any problem at all with that.

And limiting property accumulation to only personal possessions and administering the rest of the goods and spaces of society through democratic vote seems perfectly fine to me. I own what I need to live. I don't own my town. That's owned by wealthier individuals than I am. They pay the politicians. I don't. Nor do I want to pay politicians. All I have to give my representatives is my single vote in elections. I've given up any desire to claim more than what I need to live. Why should I tolerate my town being owned by a few wealthy insiders? I may as well throw my ballot in the dumpster for all the good it does if I'm opposed to something the wealthy few want.

[MikeNovack]

A) It limits the ability of people to make their own living better, but doesn't limit the elites from grabbing all the goods and power. Socialist regimes are always presided over by a soviet, or elite class, or party apparatchiks, or even by a dictator (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) and tyrannize the ordinary person by depriving him or her of any ability to add value to his own situation. It has a 100% record of doing just that.

B) And it cannot, repeat, cannot allow democratic processes, because it cannot endure Socialism being voted out.

A ---If I flip a coin five times and it comes up heads each time does that mean it MUST come up heads if I flip it a sixth time? Your argument is based on the track record so far for "authoritarian state socialism". And no examples of non-authoritarian socialism to discuss (no large scale examples.
PLEASE NOTE -- it does NOT make a difference that you consider the label "socialism" to apply only to authoritarian state socialism and that what other folks are calling socialism that isn't of the "authoritarian state" sort isn't socialism (but presumably something else). YOU KNOW THIS IS THE CASE. You kinow that THEY are using the term "socialism" even thou you would prefer they used a different term.

B -- That most certainly not specific even to authoritarian state socialism. Forget "cannot endure" since they lack a mechanism. That is a consequence of a problem intrinsic to "democratic centralism" (one its proponents ignore). It lacks any provision for "error correction". I will repeat, this concept of democracy is not specific to the revolutionary communists but was in vogue at the time. If you want a GOOD description of, defense of, etc. "democratic centralism" read the manual of The Farm Bureau << most certainly NOT part of the left >>

The argument that "single party state" authoritarian socialism cannot allow for change is not in question. Those of us who say we are for democratic socialism are not disagreeing with you. We are disagreeing with your disbelief that democratic forms of socialism are possible (again, we don't give a damn you don't want to call democratic socialism "socialism". You KNOW we are using the term that way.