The Philosophy Discussion Forum

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 8:28 pm ...your insistence on controlling the definition of socialism ...

I don't. I accept the standard definition.

I assure you, there are plenty of socialists who advocate exactly the same sort of gradual improvement you seem to think OK.

Then they aren't following their Socialism. Socialism requires revolution -- Marx even said "violence" -- and perpetual revolution. You don't know Socialist theory if you don't know that.

But you are denying them their self identification

No. I'm merely pointing out what Socialism requires. They can self-identify as candles, emus or licorice sticks, if they want; I won't stop them. But there's no reason to believe them, either.

OK then, if you don't want to use the term "socialist" to include the "democratic socialists" what do you want to call them?

"Democratic Socialist" is just an oxymoron. The two words don't go together. Socialists use it because it reassured unknowledgeable people (what Lenin called "useful idiots") that Socialism won't turn totalitarian. But it always will, because it has to.

If by "democracy" we understand a state where people get to vote for different parties and opposing candidates, Socialism can't have that. The Socialist program is utopian, which means they think it's the only plan we can have, and totalitarian, because it requires a one-party system in order to have it, with government controlling all the important issues of life and all the production. So what's possibly "democratic" about that?

What they mean, when they throw in the word "democratic" is what the Communists meant in "The German Democratic Republic," what the Kim Jongs mean in calling their Communist dictatorship "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea," and what Mao explicitly said, when he called his state, "The People's Republic of China." That is, that one totalitarian government speaks for "The People," which only means "the people who are obedient Socialists," not "all the human beings," and especially not "those who are against Socialism," who are regarded and treated as sub-human.

There's nothing less genuinely "democratic" than a Socialist state. It can't stand even the smell of real democracy...i.e. the possibility that the Socialist party would ever be voted out by genuine democratic process, or that the centralized state would lose exclusive control of the means of production, or that private property would be allowed.

They think utopia's just ahead. Do you think they can put up with any rivals?

You are being idiotic and ignoring "leftist" history.

In the 19th Century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were used more interchangeably. There were as yet NO communist revolutions. At the same time, what we now think of as democracy was thinner on the ground, but progress being made (slowly). In SOME PLACES where democracy further along, many were hopeful about prospects for democratic reform. In other places tat was seen as hopeless.

The first communist revolutions were during and immediately after WWI (Lenin in Russia, the Spartacists in Germany, Bela Kun in Hungary, etc). I suggest you look at disputes between 1900 and then between these on the revolutionary side and those on the "reformist side of which the best path forward. Say look at Rosa Luxemberg's vs Eduard Bernstein -- she is arguing Bernstein's approach is wrong, not that he isn't socialist/communist.

Natural that here in the US "democratic socialism" was a popular idea because (at least all men) had the vote. The concept is that if you had enough mass support to win a revolution you already had enough to just vote it in. Equally natural less so elsewhere. For example, in the UK, only men with PROPERTY had the vote (till 1918). But there too, as progress was seen on that front also interest in "democratic socialism". You seem to be lissfully unaware where the battle was "on the ground" in that period -- for examples, could workers organize into unions and strike. THAT was considered "revolution".

For crying out loud, do you not understand the dispute between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Are you trying to describe that as between socialists and non-socialists? << the Bolsheviks better meet your criteria >>

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2026 11:56 pm You are being idiotic and ignoring "leftist" history.

Really? Do tell.

In the 19th Century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were used more interchangeably.

As in Marx, you mean? Yes.

There were as yet NO communist revolutions. At the same time, what we now think of as democracy was thinner on the ground, but progress being made (slowly). In SOME PLACES where democracy further along, many were hopeful about prospects for democratic reform. In other places tat was seen as hopeless.

And yet, there was always America...and England...and Canada...and Australia...and the rest of the West, where democracy was producing the swiftest improvements in the general condition in recorded history.

The first communist revolutions were during and immediately after WWI (Lenin in Russia, the Spartacists in Germany, Bela Kun in Hungary, etc).

And immediately resulted in bloodbaths.

What part of history is going to start favouring Socialism? So far, it's looking pretty grim. Will there be something in the 120 million murders that will later commend Socialism to us? Will North Korea, or Vietnam, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or Congo, or Zimbabwe, or China....and on, and on, and on. Socialist regimes, every one of them...but not a single success story.

But on we go.

Natural that here in the US "democratic socialism" was a popular idea because (at least all men) had the vote. The concept is that if you had enough mass support to win a revolution you already had enough to just vote it in. Equally natural less so elsewhere. For example, in the UK, only men with PROPERTY had the vote (till 1918). But there too, as progress was seen on that front also interest in "democratic socialism". You seem to be lissfully unaware where the battle was "on the ground" in that period -- for examples, could workers organize into unions and strike. THAT was considered "revolution".

In the UK, the revolution never came. So the Socialist propagandists had to satisfy themselves with "soft" revolutions...ones that didn't manage to take over the political system and institute Socialist dogma, and fell short of the Socialist dream by a long shot, but still let them claim some measure of "victory" or achievement. But whether the Socialist activities, such as unionization, or the rising general standard of income in those countries produced that, we'll probably never know. In other words, in the UK and America, Socialism failed yet again, but -- thank God -- not by taking over control, killing people and crashing the economy.

I'm waiting for this great story of Socialism's success. I haven't heard it yet. Is there more coming?

Universal suffrage (for men) earliest in Australia (also secret ballot). So reform forces in the UK and Canada had something to look at (the UK wasn't till 1918; some provinces of Canad beginning 1900)

The US interesting. There even was a "civil war" in one state (RI) in an attempt to expand suffrage to all men. But essentially everywhere by the time of the Civil War.

I personally don't give a damn if you want to apply your special definition to socialism. PROVIDED .....
1) You simply announce some other term you will use for those socialists (people who identify that way) who do not meet YOUR criteria.
2) In particular, that you refrain from arguing (if they call themselves socialists and mean it) they must be liars, secretly what YOU call socialists.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 1:25 am Universal suffrage (for men) earliest in Australia (also secret ballot). So reform forces in the UK and Canada had something to look at (the UK wasn't till 1918; some provinces of Canad beginning 1900)

Has any of this got anything to do with Socialism? I'm not seeing it.

I personally don't give a damn if you want to apply your special definition to socialism.

I don't have a "special definition." As I said, I'm using the standard one. What are you using?

Marx said the essence of socialism was the abolition of private property. He later says it requires public ownership of what he calls "the means of production." What are you thinking it entails?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 1:34 am a) What are you using?

b) Marx said the essence of socialism was the abolition of private property. He later says it requires public ownership of what he calls "the means of production." What are you thinking it entails?

You are asking ME? Let's be clear about that. I am a "left libertarian" (collectivist minded anarchist) and so more in common with the "right libertarians" (individualist anarchist) than with the traditional left.

first "a" --- I am using a practical definition since having to interact with, attempt to work with, more traditional leftists. In other words, often in conflict with them over how projects should be carried out IF needing their co-operation for the project. Keep in mind that as an anarchist I might not need their consent/co-operation if I can assemble a group of like-minded willing to commit the resources necessary to carry out the project.

I'm not sure how fruitful it would be to discuss with you who is or is not "socialist" since you so far have not been willing to look group by group and venture an opinion except in terms of "definition". I'm not going to bother until/unless you will consider things like "The True Levelers" or "The Catholic Workers".

second "b" --- I think I have made perfectly clear that I consider the relation "owns" something that exists only in terms of social reality. So "property" would have no MATERIAL reality. All Marxists and most other leftists think "property" has material reality. Understand, since I have to work with Marxists and other socialist who are materialist in this way I do have to understand what THEY mean by "public ownership". But when you ask ME what that means the answer is more like "has ceased to be property" (social reality has changed its status).

Does THIS example help? "whose property is this road we are driving on?'
Capitalist --- It is public property
Marxist ------ It is public property
Me ----------- Not a meaningful question. The road is not something our society is considering "property" (if everyone owns it, no one does, not "owned")

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 5:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 1:34 am a) What are you using?

b) Marx said the essence of socialism was the abolition of private property. He later says it requires public ownership of what he calls "the means of production." What are you thinking it entails?

You are asking ME?

Is there somebody else at your address?

Let's be clear about that. I am a "left libertarian" (collectivist minded anarchist) and so more in common with the "right libertarians" (individualist anarchist) than with the traditional left.

You'll have to explain what a "left libertarian" is. Leftism is inherently authoritarian, and hence, not devoted to "liberty" of any kind.

first "a" --- I am using a practical definition

Could you give it, please?

Keep in mind that as an anarchist

Now you're an "anarchist" as well? Then there's no way you're a Leftist.

You've got some 'splainin' to do, I'm afraid.

second "b" --- I think I have made perfectly clear that I consider the relation "owns" something that exists only in terms of social reality. So "property" would have no MATERIAL reality.

That's a non-sequitur, of course. We all believe in the reality of things that have no "material reality."

"Property" itself is usually material (leaving aside things like artistic copyright and such), but property rights are an immaterial value...one that links inexorably with the rights to life and liberty, as Locke showed.

If you believe in liberty, you're going to end up having to believe in property as well...because when you've got no property (i.e. nothing that is exclusively yours), neither do you have any possibility of actualizing any freedom.

Test it out: try to propose a scenario in which you exercise your freedom, but don't require or impinge on any material property at all, yours or anybody else's. You can't do it. All you end up with is the freedom to breathe...so long as you don't take possession of any oxygen, of course.

All Marxists and most other leftists think "property" has material reality.

Yes. There's no IQ test for Marxist membership, apparently.

Does THIS example help? "whose property is this road we are driving on?'
Capitalist --- It is public property
Marxist ------ It is public property
Me ----------- Not a meaningful question. The road is not something our society is considering "property" (if everyone owns it, no one does, not "owned")

Not really. In the first place, there's really no such actual thing as a "Capitalist," except in the fevered, Marxist imagination. So it's hard to say whom you could be talking about there. Therefore, it's impossible to evaluate the truth of the first claim.

The second claim, Marxism's claim, is disingenuous on their part. They may talk about "public ownership," but the truth is that it is controlled and managed in the name of "The People" by a privileged Marxist elite. So the public doesn't actually own it.

The third? I don't think it can be rationally sustained. As I say, a man without property (i.e., in the broad sense, nothing within his power of disposition) has no freedom either. There's not one thing he can do.

So whose is the road? That's a contested question. The government demanded it, and they regulate it, but for others' use. The construction company made it, but had no authority to do so but that derived from the government. It was created for the use of the citizenry, with dollars the government took from ordinary citizens. The citizenry paid for it, but don't control it. Individuals use it, but don't own it.

Look IC, you asked ME.

Then you have no right to respond this way. You already knew I do not define "leftist/socialist/communist" the way you do. Now apparently you think you can do the same with "anarchist" << I assume you mean if not a individualist anarchist not an anarchist -- left/right don't have their usual meaning when applied to anarchists, more like communal vs individual >>

YOUR definitions do not give you right/power to decide how I can or cannot describe myself (or others)

So ..., I'm going to put the ball in your court. What would YOU call the "True Levelers" and the "Catholic Workers"? If you are not willing to tackle that question, you are simply unqualified to opine about who is "left" or not.

I am not suggesting in your assumption of the power of definition to redefine reality you are not in "good company". Many/most "sects" of the traditional left often define themselves as "the only true leftists" (and those of other "sects" not really leftists). Something a lot of Christian sects do. But when your Sect A declares "folks of Sect B aren't really Christians" do you imagine that the folks of Sect B accept that?

I don't give a damn if you don't consider me a leftist. But please note when you argue "since you call yourself a leftist then you MUST be "authoritarian" you are going too far.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 11:45 pm Look IC, you asked ME.

Yes. I asked you what your definition of "Socialist" was, since it clearly didn't fit the standard ones. And you never really replied.

So ..., I'm going to put the ball in your court. What would YOU call the "True Levelers" and the "Catholic Workers"?

Historical artifacts. They're actually not terribly interesting. If you think they have some importance to post-Marxian Socialism, I'm all ears. Maybe you can tell me. But until I know what you think a Socialist is, you won't even be able to explain that in a way that makes sense.

...when you argue "since you call yourself a leftist then you MUST be "authoritarian" you are going too far.

Not at all. It's very easy to show.

But first, give me your definition of Socialism, and then I'll explain why, if you're interested. You'll see I'm right.

@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.

Given upon googling for the definition of Socialism.

Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 11:58 pm They're actually not terribly interesting. If you think they have some importance to post-Marxian Socialism, I'm all ears. Maybe you can tell me. But until I know what you think a Socialist is, you won't even be able to explain that in a way that makes sense.

Historical? I intentionally gave one pre Marx and one post Marx example. One not only post Marx but within our lifetimes. Well mine anyway, as I have heard Dorothy Day speak.

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

If "left wing anarchists" do not/could not exist, explain the references to the Wobbles (IWW) and the existence of this copy of The Little Red Songbook in my music drawer.. Or the existence of this lovely enamel on gold CNT/FAI pin (sold for fundraising during the Spanish Civil War). You are UK, right? What was the "Siege of Sydney Street" and who was Peter the Painter? << in the middle, well post Marx but not modern era >>

If there was no real/existing non-bolshevik side why in 1920 did Lenin bother writing the polemic Left Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder?

BUT if you are asking ME for a definition of Socialism/Communism, I'm not sure the full range of possibilities necessarily conflicts with "free markets" (just as the full range of "capitalism" does not require markets free of manipulation)

Come back after doing some homework.

So, IC. Elon Musk is the richest man on the planet. Do you think Elon Musk "earned" his billions? Do you approve of Musk waltzing through government offices as the director of "DOGE" (appointed by another billionaire) demanding to see all our personal information on Social Security? Is that not a joke to you? If socialists want to tax him heavily to take away some of his billions in order to fund social programs such as Social Security, would you protest socialists taking some of his money away from him? Do you think it's OK or do you think it's a crime to tax Musk a higher rate than other citizens?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 3:35 pm 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.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 4:08 pm 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 7:40 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 3:35 pm 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 (and it is concise) you deny the existence/possibility of what I would include within leftism/socialism/communism. That means it makes little sense of me to give you my (rather broad) definition until/unless you give some response about what you would call certain examples << that I would consider within the broad description >> And facts? You were saying certain combinations did notr/could not exist and I was using ARTIFACTS to show the contrary.

Repeat, and we'll make the bracketing of Marx clearer. True Levelers, Shakers, Catholic Workers (pre Marx, contemporaneous, and post Marx). How go you describe/label their collectivism. This should be right up your alley as all three inspired by religion, and in two of the cases, more or less your own brand. Also, for the moment gets around having to deal with your notion that the non-religious could have ethics/moralitry.

Understand? I expect you not to be using socialist/communist in your description, but some other term for their "collectivism". Only once I have heard your term Y, can I give you my definition, since I would be able say something like "with my definition of socialism/communism/leftism Y would (or would not) be included in the range.