Riots in the city of love

[mickthinks]

Name one time in all of history where a Socialist regime has allowed itself to be voted out.

Er … the Democratic Party has allowed itself to be voted out of power in 2024, 2022, 2016, 2014, 2010, 2000, 1994, …

[MikeNovack]

IC doesn't believe democratic socialists exist.

Socialists exist. But they are never "democratic." By definition of Socialism, they can never be that.
[/quote]

That's "definitional", IC. WE can accept that you won't use the term "socialist" to describe what others are calling "democratic socialism". So? You in turn have to accept that what the others are calling "socialism" covers a wider range than what you are willing to call "socialism". You cannot (properly) require the rest of us to change how we use the term.

[MikeNovack]

Name one time in all of history where a Socialist regime has allowed itself to be voted out.

Er … the Democratic Party has allowed itself to be voted out of power in 2024, 2022, 2016, 2014, 2010, 2000, 1994, …

Except the Democratic Party is not socialist. At most, liberal capitalist with a sprinkling of socialists.

[Immanuel Can]

Could a person believe that democracy was the ultimate good but that socialism had some merits to it also,

Of course. But unfortunately for him, he can't have both, since they're mutually cancelling. To the extent that a polity is Socialist, it cannot be democratic. To the extent that it's democratic, it won't be Socialist. He'll have to choose...or pick a third alternative.

So is it the case that the more democratic a polity is, the less socialist it is, and vice versa?

Right. The more one forces people into a collective, the less the individual matters. The more one allows individual choice, the less they will be obedient to the collective. And bear in mind that in Socialism, the interests of the collective never end up being polled from the collective itself; "the People's standpoint," as Mao called it, is dictated by the Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Kim Jong who runs the show.

Is there no such thing as a little of both (maybe more of one than the other)? (As some try to say a country can be a "mixed" economy.)

Socialism produces nothing. The State produces nothing. So Socialism has to fuel it's program from some source that is capable of generating income and adding value. Otherwise, it collapses immediately.

Now, you still aren't distinguishing between "social programs" and "Socialism." And it's important to do so; because some limited social programs are quite possible, so long as capital is still being generated from an open market -- people can have some health care, some retirement funds, some unemployment insurance, and so forth. That's possible, if the system is adding value and making money. But that's just free markets, with some associated benefits. That is possible.

But that isn't what Socialism is. Socialism's not a limited program of capital-funded social benefits. Socialism is a comprehensive ideology and political system in which "the State will do it" becomes the answer to every problem. (That's definitional: remember that Socialism demands that the State must "OWN the means of production.) But that State has no ability to generate value or create new income. So the State has to steal that from people who can...it has to become a kleptocracy, taxing out of productive sources that which it is, itself, incapable of producing. In other words, it starts eating the "golden goose" immediately. And since it despises "Capitalism," it makes an enemy out of anybody who is successful, who is productive, who is seeming to have "privileges" or "advantages" above others. So it eats up its own source of supply immediately, and then has to become either aggressive and colonial (like China is now), or compromise its Socialism and allow "Capitalism" to return as "Red Capitalism," (like China is also doing right now. And both strategies turn out to be self-defeating, in the long run. Colonialism cannot go on forever, and compromising Socialist dogma makes the economy less and less Socialist.

The reason Socialism is not working is that it never works. It has an unrealistic anthropology, an unrealistic economics, and an unrealistic sociology. It's a fantasy system, that sells itself on the naive idea that everybody can get everything for free if only we fill ourselves with enough envy and greed to overthrow the status quo.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, you can thank the Reformation and all those uppity antipapists for that. For an idea of how well we got along when we did have common values and beliefs, here is a list of the wars between 1000 - 1499: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1000–1499

Right. Well, you'll have to extract from that number all those caused by the RC's, because we already know they were doing that, and they're the institutional-political religion. And then you'll have to extract all those who did something their Scriptures commanded them not to do -- for then, it's not reasonable to think that it was their religious beliefs that led them to do what they did. One cannot blame a creed for those who refuse to obey it, of course. And the number left will be so vanishingly small you've got nothing to work with.

And it will always be dwarfed by the numbers of those who died in secular wars and purges...by orders of magnitude. By best estimates, not more than 4% of that total...

That's the best estimate, eh?

By academic, secular sources. It certainly isn't far off the truth, since you can find the detailed breakdown in the three-volume, secular and academic Encyclopedia of War. The authors have no reason to fudge those statistics, and since the gap is so huge, they certainly couldn't fudge them enough to cover for Socialism.

there has never been a time when europeans were united as you imply.

I didn't "imply" any such thing. No Western polities have every been genuinely united...at most, broad populations have shared a few basic values. But those basic values have accounted for what unity Western polities have ever had.

I would suggest is commensurate with the number of europeans who have ever been 'Christian' according to the criteria you demand.

I haven't "demanded" any such thing. But don't you realize that you're making my case even stronger? If, within that miniscule subset of 4% the secular statistics reveal, the majority were not Christian at all (because you've forgotten the Hindu wars, the Buddhist wars, the pagan ones, the RC ones, all of which are rolled into that 4%) and even those whom we might think were somewhat "Christian" were, as you suggest, mostly not really that, then we are down to a fraction of a fraction of 1%...a vanishingly small percentage of the whole.

In other words, you've just shot your own argument. Real Christians don't cause wars. And I agree with you on that.

[Immanuel Can]

IC doesn't believe democratic socialists exist.

Socialists exist. But they are never "democratic." By definition of Socialism, they can never be that.

That's "definitional", IC. WE can accept that you won't use the term "socialist" to describe what others are calling "democratic socialism".

Yes, it's definitional. Don't you remember the most basic definition of Socialism? It's "the State must control all means of production." Therefore, no individual enterprise can be allowed at all, by definition, or Socialism is not complete.

You cannot (properly) require the rest of us to change how we use the term.

I'm not. Socialism has been defined by Marx, and then redefined by his followers, like Adorno, Gramsci, Horkheimer et al. I'm just repeating their definition, not imposing a new one. Basic to Socialism is that the State owns all. "Democratic Socialism" is actually a deceptive term, used to give naive people a feeling that Socialism will be "what they voted for," or "the will of the people." But it doesn't make any sense in terms of what Socialism itself claims is its basic meaning.

And democracy means that the people get to vote against Socialism. They get to opt out of the collective (what Socialists call "The People"), and get to do their own thing or change the terms of government. Socialism can't be implemented in a population that cannot be controlled, suppressed and directed toward Socialism,and on a continuous and unrelenting basis. So it cannot coexist with democracy.

[Immanuel Can]

Name one time in all of history where a Socialist regime has allowed itself to be voted out.

Er … the Democratic Party has allowed itself to be voted out of power in 2024, 2022, 2016, 2014, 2010, 2000, 1994, …

Except the Democratic Party is not socialist. At most, liberal capitalist with a sprinkling of socialists.

Increasingly, even the centrist in the Democratic Party are lamenting the takeover from the Socialists, and wondering if they haven't lost the electorate by becoming too radical. That's one reason that old Democrats like Kennedy, Gabbard and Trump have wandered off the Democrat reservation -- much to their chagrin.

[mickthinks]

… the Democratic Party is not socialist.

Ah, but does Manny agree with you on that point, Mike? As I recall, he is firmly entrenched with the MAGAs and their deranged weltanshaung.

[Gary Childress]

Of course. But unfortunately for him, he can't have both, since they're mutually cancelling. To the extent that a polity is Socialist, it cannot be democratic. To the extent that it's democratic, it won't be Socialist. He'll have to choose...or pick a third alternative.

So is it the case that the more democratic a polity is, the less socialist it is, and vice versa?

Right. The more one forces people into a collective, the less the individual matters. The more one allows individual choice, the less they will be obedient to the collective. And bear in mind that in Socialism, the interests of the collective never end up being polled from the collective itself; "the People's standpoint," as Mao called it, is dictated by the Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Kim Jong who runs the show.

Is there no such thing as a little of both (maybe more of one than the other)? (As some try to say a country can be a "mixed" economy.)

Socialism produces nothing. The State produces nothing. So Socialism has to fuel it's program from some source that is capable of generating income and adding value. Otherwise, it collapses immediately.

Now, you still aren't distinguishing between "social programs" and "Socialism." And it's important to do so; because some limited social programs are quite possible, so long as capital is still being generated from an open market -- people can have some health care, some retirement funds, some unemployment insurance, and so forth. That's possible, if the system is adding value and making money. But that's just free markets, with some associated benefits. That is possible.

But that isn't what Socialism is. Socialism's not a limited program of capital-funded social benefits. Socialism is a comprehensive ideology and political system in which "the State will do it" becomes the answer to every problem. (That's definitional: remember that Socialism demands that the State must "OWN the means of production.) But that State has no ability to generate value or create new income. So the State has to steal that from people who can...it has to become a kleptocracy, taxing out of productive sources that which it is, itself, incapable of producing. In other words, it starts eating the "golden goose" immediately. And since it despises "Capitalism," it makes an enemy out of anybody who is successful, who is productive, who is seeming to have "privileges" or "advantages" above others. So it eats up its own source of supply immediately, and then has to become either aggressive and colonial (like China is now), or compromise its Socialism and allow "Capitalism" to return as "Red Capitalism," (like China is also doing right now. And both strategies turn out to be self-defeating, in the long run. Colonialism cannot go on forever, and compromising Socialist dogma makes the economy less and less Socialist.

The reason Socialism is not working is that it never works. It has an unrealistic anthropology, an unrealistic economics, and an unrealistic sociology. It's a fantasy system, that sells itself on the naive idea that everybody can get everything for free if only we fill ourselves with enough envy and greed to overthrow the status quo.

So is China a "socialist" country (or communist, or whatever you want to call it)? And if so, they seem to be doing quite well for themselves. If they're socialist, shouldn't they be an economic disaster instead of the only other state in the world that competes with the US on the AI frontier? They're also remarkably self-sufficient, probably more so than the US now.

[Immanuel Can]

So is it the case that the more democratic a polity is, the less socialist it is, and vice versa?

Right. The more one forces people into a collective, the less the individual matters. The more one allows individual choice, the less they will be obedient to the collective. And bear in mind that in Socialism, the interests of the collective never end up being polled from the collective itself; "the People's standpoint," as Mao called it, is dictated by the Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Kim Jong who runs the show.

Is there no such thing as a little of both (maybe more of one than the other)? (As some try to say a country can be a "mixed" economy.)

Socialism produces nothing. The State produces nothing. So Socialism has to fuel it's program from some source that is capable of generating income and adding value. Otherwise, it collapses immediately.

Now, you still aren't distinguishing between "social programs" and "Socialism." And it's important to do so; because some limited social programs are quite possible, so long as capital is still being generated from an open market -- people can have some health care, some retirement funds, some unemployment insurance, and so forth. That's possible, if the system is adding value and making money. But that's just free markets, with some associated benefits. That is possible.

But that isn't what Socialism is. Socialism's not a limited program of capital-funded social benefits. Socialism is a comprehensive ideology and political system in which "the State will do it" becomes the answer to every problem. (That's definitional: remember that Socialism demands that the State must "OWN the means of production.) But that State has no ability to generate value or create new income. So the State has to steal that from people who can...it has to become a kleptocracy, taxing out of productive sources that which it is, itself, incapable of producing. In other words, it starts eating the "golden goose" immediately. And since it despises "Capitalism," it makes an enemy out of anybody who is successful, who is productive, who is seeming to have "privileges" or "advantages" above others. So it eats up its own source of supply immediately, and then has to become either aggressive and colonial (like China is now), or compromise its Socialism and allow "Capitalism" to return as "Red Capitalism," (like China is also doing right now. And both strategies turn out to be self-defeating, in the long run. Colonialism cannot go on forever, and compromising Socialist dogma makes the economy less and less Socialist.

The reason Socialism is not working is that it never works. It has an unrealistic anthropology, an unrealistic economics, and an unrealistic sociology. It's a fantasy system, that sells itself on the naive idea that everybody can get everything for free if only we fill ourselves with enough envy and greed to overthrow the status quo.

So is China a "socialist" country (or communist, or whatever you want to call it)? And if so, they seem to be doing quite well for themselves.

China had to adopt "Red Capitalism" just to survive. Communism was crashing the economy.

[Gary Childress]

Right. The more one forces people into a collective, the less the individual matters. The more one allows individual choice, the less they will be obedient to the collective. And bear in mind that in Socialism, the interests of the collective never end up being polled from the collective itself; "the People's standpoint," as Mao called it, is dictated by the Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Kim Jong who runs the show.

Socialism produces nothing. The State produces nothing. So Socialism has to fuel it's program from some source that is capable of generating income and adding value. Otherwise, it collapses immediately.

Now, you still aren't distinguishing between "social programs" and "Socialism." And it's important to do so; because some limited social programs are quite possible, so long as capital is still being generated from an open market -- people can have some health care, some retirement funds, some unemployment insurance, and so forth. That's possible, if the system is adding value and making money. But that's just free markets, with some associated benefits. That is possible.

But that isn't what Socialism is. Socialism's not a limited program of capital-funded social benefits. Socialism is a comprehensive ideology and political system in which "the State will do it" becomes the answer to every problem. (That's definitional: remember that Socialism demands that the State must "OWN the means of production.) But that State has no ability to generate value or create new income. So the State has to steal that from people who can...it has to become a kleptocracy, taxing out of productive sources that which it is, itself, incapable of producing. In other words, it starts eating the "golden goose" immediately. And since it despises "Capitalism," it makes an enemy out of anybody who is successful, who is productive, who is seeming to have "privileges" or "advantages" above others. So it eats up its own source of supply immediately, and then has to become either aggressive and colonial (like China is now), or compromise its Socialism and allow "Capitalism" to return as "Red Capitalism," (like China is also doing right now. And both strategies turn out to be self-defeating, in the long run. Colonialism cannot go on forever, and compromising Socialist dogma makes the economy less and less Socialist.

The reason Socialism is not working is that it never works. It has an unrealistic anthropology, an unrealistic economics, and an unrealistic sociology. It's a fantasy system, that sells itself on the naive idea that everybody can get everything for free if only we fill ourselves with enough envy and greed to overthrow the status quo.

So is China a "socialist" country (or communist, or whatever you want to call it)? And if so, they seem to be doing quite well for themselves.

China had to adopt "Red Capitalism" just to survive. Communism was crashing the economy.

Sounds like "Red capitalism" might be better than whatever the US is doing.

[Immanuel Can]

So is China a "socialist" country (or communist, or whatever you want to call it)? And if so, they seem to be doing quite well for themselves.

China had to adopt "Red Capitalism" just to survive. Communism was crashing the economy.

Sounds like "Red capitalism" might be better than whatever the US is doing.

That depends. Do you like totalitarianism?

[Will Bouwman]

there has never been a time when europeans were united as you imply.

I didn't "imply" any such thing.

Here:

This is a very serious problem. Having abandoned the metaphysical grounding of the Jewish and Christian worldview, what is one's incentive for unifying in defense of something? There are no longer any values they believe in in common.

I would suggest is commensurate with the number of europeans who have ever been 'Christian' according to the criteria you demand.

I haven't "demanded" any such thing.

Very well; since there are no criteria by which to distinguish

Real Christians

all wars are started by and fought between real Christians.

But don't you realize that you're making my case even stronger? If, within that miniscule subset of 4% the secular statistics reveal, the majority were not Christian at all (because you've forgotten the Hindu wars, the Buddhist wars...

Which I think we can safely ignore in the context of Europe.

...the pagan ones, the RC ones, all of which are rolled into that 4%) and even those whom we might think were somewhat "Christian" were, as you suggest, mostly not really that...

You appear to be arguing on the assumption that I accept your criteria for "Real Christians", which I do not.

...then we are down to a fraction of a fraction of 1%...a vanishingly small percentage of the whole.

In other words, you've just shot your own argument. Real Christians don't cause wars. And I agree with you on that.

No Mr Can; my argument is that what you call "Real Christians" are as vanishingly small a percentage of the whole as the wars you attribute to them, making "Real Christians" no more or less aggressive than anyone else.

[Gary Childress]

China had to adopt "Red Capitalism" just to survive. Communism was crashing the economy.

Sounds like "Red capitalism" might be better than whatever the US is doing.

That depends. Do you like totalitarianism?

No. A democratic form of the Chinese system would probably be more tolerable. But if you want to live in a world where the top 10% own 75% of total wealth, leaving 25% to the bottom 90%, then continue to root for capitalism. Live your fantasy. It'll kill us all, but you're so convinced that you're right it doesn't matter to you. I suppose that's what embracing a 2000 year old religion does to a person. You'll lead us to destruction in the name of "salvation."

[Immanuel Can]

Sounds like "Red capitalism" might be better than whatever the US is doing.

That depends. Do you like totalitarianism?

No. A democratic form of the Chinese system would probably be more tolerable.

Well, there is no "Chinese system" but totalitarianism, right now. For them to become democratic would entail them not being Communist. So if you're prepared to see them abandon their Socialist commitments, then maybe that can happen. And it would be great if it did.