Fabianism

[Gary Childress]

So obsessed with your definitions.

You don't think Socialism has its own definition? It seems the internet begs to differ. So you might have to take it up with AI:

"Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources."

And Oxford:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And it's better that the means of production be owned by individuals who are interested in extracting personal profit from it instead of by society as a whole? Is this because individuals motivated by profit are somehow more trustworthy than social organizations run democratically by the members of society?

[Immanuel Can]

So obsessed with your definitions.

You don't think Socialism has its own definition? It seems the internet begs to differ. So you might have to take it up with AI:

"Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources."

And Oxford:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And it's better that the means of production be owned by individuals who are interested in extracting personal profit from it

Nobody has said this, Gary. But the freedom to invent, invest, work for one's own purpose, and improve one's own life is a precious freedom. Socialism deprives people of that.

Moreover, collectives don't rule in your interest. They don't even rule in the collective's best interests. They rule in the Fabians' interest, the interest of the power-greedy, "wolfish" elites.

That's not better than the challenge of freedom. Freedom's not easy: it's just better than everything else.

[MikeNovack]

So obsessed with your definitions.

You don't think Socialism has its own definition? It seems the internet begs to differ. So you might have to take it up with AI:

"Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources."

And Oxford:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

But note that neither of those definitions deals with/limits the system of governance used. Could be non-democratic OR democratic.

I'll apologize in advance for entrapping you this way. You accept the Fabians as socialist. You then proceed to claim that they are NOT taking into the problem of governance, how to make this socialism work with imperfect humans as leaders. But they have at least implicitly addressed the matter because they are DEMOCRATIC socialists. A properly functioning democratic system requires having structures in place to handle the reality that those in power will be imperfect humans. Needs to have mechanisms to manage that. In other words, the Fabians are entitled to presume the structures and mechanisms required to control the imperfect leaders of their socialism will already be in place.

They aren't wolves in power over sheep. They can only cajole, nudge, try to convince people to adopt the changes toward socialism. That's what you have committed yourself to when you commit to doing things democratically. You have been describing the Fabians as if they were non-democratic socialists even though you have to know that is contrary to fact. There is nothing wrong with an elite claiming to know better if they are working just by cajoling, nudging, convincing (that is VERY different than trying to rule over).

And yes IC, I am aware of the current socio-political climate where there IS precisely that objection to "elites" or certain subcultures doing just that. Working in the arts, etc. to "demonstrate" their values. The so called "culture wars" where just showing/arguing for is equated to imposing. That is B...S... << the proper response would be to counter with works promoting your own cultural values --- but I guess that's tough if the talent is lacking >>

[Immanuel Can]

So obsessed with your definitions.

You don't think Socialism has its own definition? It seems the internet begs to differ. So you might have to take it up with AI:

"Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources."

And Oxford:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

But note that neither of those definitions deals with/limits the system of governance used. Could be non-democratic OR democratic.

No, not democratic. It can't be. If "the People" are to own all the "means of production," and if, for the sake of the Socialist project, no alternate party with some other political belief or orientation is allowed to exist, whatever is left cannot possibly be "democratic." It can only be totalitarian.

And so it has proved to be, in every case.

I'll apologize in advance for entrapping you this way.

Don't. There was no "trap." I don't feel remotely "caught" by it.

You accept the Fabians as socialist.

The Fabians accept themselves as "Socialist." I don't have to add anything to that.

A properly functioning democratic system requires having structures in place to handle the reality that those in power will be imperfect humans.

Yes, absolutely. But they cannot then be Socialist. Socialism and democracy -- meaning multiple parties, different political choices, freedom in the markets, private property, etc. -- cannot be endured by Socialists. It ruins the aspirations of Socialism.

In other words, the Fabians are entitled to presume the structures and mechanisms required to control the imperfect leaders of their socialism will already be in place.

Are they? You think so? You think you want to leave the inventing of such mechanisms to the Fabians? And you think they'll do that, though they've declared themselves the "wolfish" elite already?

I have some land in Florida to sell you. It's a lovely vacation property, near the ocean, with stable land, excellent prospects, and very few alligators.

They aren't wolves in power over sheep.

Then the Fabians are lying about what they are. They say they're the wolves. Personally, I believe them.

You have been describing the Fabians as if they were non-democratic socialists

Worse. They're actually totalitarian elitists. For them, Socialism is merely a tool, a handy way to control and rob the masses. Socialism is always, always for the masses; they have no thought of imposing it upon themselves. They have no love of equality, or the collective, or the end of private property.

Look how they live. Don't listen to me. Open your eyes. Look at the Pelosi, or Newsome, or Obama, or Clinton mansions. See the Starmers, the Trudeaus and the Albaneses of the world. See the Soroses, and the Finks. See their homes, their lifestyles, their investment portfolios. Do they live like proles? How fast are they divesting themselves of wealth? Are they keen to share their power? Do they behave like good Socialists?

Judge for yourself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nobody has said this, Gary. But the freedom to invent, invest, work for one's own purpose, and improve one's own life is a precious freedom. Socialism deprives people of that.

This issue is quite easy to solve. First, IC’s issue and his argument involve radically socialized states. Every example of such shows a system that no one wants and that fail. Some catastrophically.

But, to the degree that some nations develop social programs to channel public funds (derived from taxation) to distributions 1) beneficial to people and 2) that people request (because they choose leadership that represents them), in this sense socialism if defined in this way is often results in ‘good’.

But problem arises when a state (like Canada, IC’s adopted country)) is over-controlled by govermentalized socialism. And that certainly happens unless it is limited and restricted.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody has said this, Gary. But the freedom to invent, invest, work for one's own purpose, and improve one's own life is a precious freedom. Socialism deprives people of that.

This issue is quite easy to solve. First, IC’s issue and his argument involve radically socialized states. Every example of such shows a system that no one wants and that fail. Some catastrophically.

But, to the degree that some nations develop social programs to channel public funds (derived from taxation) to distributions 1) beneficial to people and 2) that people request (because they choose leadership that represents them), in this sense socialism if defined in this way is often results in ‘good’.

But problem arises when a state (like Canada, IC’s adopted country)) is over-controlled by govermentalized socialism. And that certainly happens unless it is limited and restricted.

I actually agree with you on this...sort of.

But here's the problem: Socialism, as an ideology, is inherently what you call "radical." It demands to become the total system of economic and political control: anything less, and private property remains, the People do not own all the means of production, and "the new Socialist man" is not being made, and people still don't join the collective, the press can still criticize the Socialist project, and capital continues to escape, and the education system is not subdued to Socialist uses, and there are alternate political visions in play which can destroy all the 'gains' Socialism makes, within one administration.

Socialism's utopian goal becomes impossible, then. So Socialism, the ideology, cannot accept any such half-way measures. It has to take over everything, or it simply fails. So how is one going to "limit and restrict" Socialism in the way you advise, without thereby destroying the ultimate goals of Socialism?

[Gary Childress]

You don't think Socialism has its own definition? It seems the internet begs to differ. So you might have to take it up with AI:

"Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources."

And Oxford:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And it's better that the means of production be owned by individuals who are interested in extracting personal profit from it

Nobody has said this, Gary. But the freedom to invent, invest, work for one's own purpose, and improve one's own life is a precious freedom. Socialism deprives people of that.

Moreover, collectives don't rule in your interest. They don't even rule in the collective's best interests. They rule in the Fabians' interest, the interest of the power-greedy, "wolfish" elites.

That's not better than the challenge of freedom. Freedom's not easy: it's just better than everything else.

OK. So am I to understand you as holding the position that it is NOT better that the means of production be owned by individuals who are interested in extracting personal profit from it?

[MikeNovack]

They will not, for example, accept any genuine diversity of opinion or politics, any legislated limitations on the power or range of a Socialist government, and they most certainly will not address the problem of how to tackle the "wolfishness" that is latent in every human soul, always ready to be actualized in some form when the right circumstances present themselves. For even the kindest, most gentle, most altruistic soul can be drawn to cruelty when faced with particular temptations. Socialism does nothing to compensate for that reality. Its project, its theory, doesn't suit that realization. And the procedures it needs -- such as mono-governance, no term limits, no limits on jurisdiction, no diversity of belief and thought, no free press, and so forth -- are all particularly bad things if we are faced with the problem of human fallibility or "wolfishness."

Are you saying that because I see the problem that means I am not a socialist (of some sort)?

No. I'm saying that if you are a Socialist, and yet you know about "wolfishness," you should NOT be a Socialist any longer. That Socialism is incompatible with that reality.

Then what ARE people like me?

You'll have to decide, of course. You won't be able to remain a Socialist. You'll find it's eternally in conflict with the realistic view of human nature.

Do you really not understand? It's YOU who need a name for this other, not me. I am perfectly happy considering it part of the spectrum that is socialism. I wouldn't be able to remain what YOU consider socialist, but then I never was.

It is YOU who are essentially deciding "if democratic, not socialism", that socialist governance would have to be ":one party, etc.". Since I see vast disagreements even between socialists, that is ridiculous to me. YES, there are non-democratic socialists, one party socialists, etc. That does not mean there CAN'T be democratic socialism. And democratic socialists are not going to drop the babel "socialist" just because that notion makes you uncomfortable (costs you an objection to socialism).

Yes, a democratic socialism would have to tolerate even non-socialist parties (not just parties of different minded socialists). Democracy is like that.

[Immanuel Can]

They will not, for example, accept any genuine diversity of opinion or politics, any legislated limitations on the power or range of a Socialist government, and they most certainly will not address the problem of how to tackle the "wolfishness" that is latent in every human soul, always ready to be actualized in some form when the right circumstances present themselves. For even the kindest, most gentle, most altruistic soul can be drawn to cruelty when faced with particular temptations. Socialism does nothing to compensate for that reality. Its project, its theory, doesn't suit that realization. And the procedures it needs -- such as mono-governance, no term limits, no limits on jurisdiction, no diversity of belief and thought, no free press, and so forth -- are all particularly bad things if we are faced with the problem of human fallibility or "wolfishness."

Are you saying that because I see the problem that means I am not a socialist (of some sort)?

No. I'm saying that if you are a Socialist, and yet you know about "wolfishness," you should NOT be a Socialist any longer. That Socialism is incompatible with that reality.

Then what ARE people like me?

You'll have to decide, of course. You won't be able to remain a Socialist. You'll find it's eternally in conflict with the realistic view of human nature.

Do you really not understand?

No, I really, really do. But I understand why this is all unfamiliar to you. Most people who think they favour Socialism don't have clue about what the theory really is. They need to read more. But they think it means something like, "Just share," or "be nice to workers." They can't imagine how comprehensive and how sinister the whole thing is, because its surface values look good to them.

But the Fabian-types know how to use that sort of naivete. They count on it.

I wouldn't be able to remain what YOU consider socialist, but then I never was.

Excellent. Nobody should be a Socialist. If you've escaped their gravity, good for you.

YES, there are non-democratic socialists, one party socialists, etc.

This is why I prefer to talk about the ideology, not about individuals. Individuals have different levels of understanding of what they're buying into. But the theory stays the same. Once it's been written down, it has a remarkable stability. It doesn't just shift its arguments and opinions around, the way individuals tend to.

Yes, a democratic socialism would have to tolerate even non-socialist parties (not just parties of different minded socialists). Democracy is like that.

Yes, it is. And that's why Socialism and democracy are inherently in conflict. To the extent something is genuinely democratic, it's not under Socialist control; it allows options, differences, freedoms, choices, alternate ideologies. But to the extent the Socialist overlords control it, it's not ever going to be democratic.

[MikeNovack]

I guess it is useless to try to communicate with you on this subject.

Ridiculous notion of yours that I am ignorant on the subject. I probably lost more books on socialism, theory and practice, in our 2006 house fire than you have read (we lost about 2500 books, about half the books in the house -- only about 1000 in the room that burned but smoke and water did for the rest)

And I'm sure I've spoken with, argued with, etc. orders of magnitude more socialist (of all brands) than you have met, let alone talked to

[FlashDangerpants]

I guess it is useless to try to communicate with you on this subject.

Everyone has to reach that point with IC at some time, it's a rite of passage.

[Immanuel Can]

Ridiculous notion of yours that I am ignorant on the subject.

It was the kinder assumption, actually. The other most obvious possibility would be that you actually do know what Socialism is about, but you're being disingenuous or dishonest about it. I felt uncomfortable with the latter, and preferred to think the former.

But to be fair, perhaps the answer is neither of those. Perhaps it's that, for all the books you say you've read, you've not read the ones that actually explain Socialist theory, or that they don't do it in an honest and forthcoming way. That, too, is possible.

The fact that you cannot even provide a definition for "Socialism" suggests your knowledge of it, however expansive it might be, is perhaps not as deep as necessary. Defining is an awfully basic thing. One can hardly know anything about a subject one simply can't think of how to define.