Philosophy Now Forum

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=507055 time=1618191528 user_id=472]
You too, Advocate: still waitin' on [i]your[/i], in context, definition of socialism, or [i]Socialism[/i].
[/quote]

I've done that various times and ways. The social aspect is the important one. The economic aspect next, and the political one almost not at all. Socialism doesn't imply method.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:44 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:38 am You too, Advocate: still waitin' on your, in context, definition of socialism, or Socialism.

I've done that various times and ways. The social aspect is the important one. The economic aspect next, and the political one almost not at all. Socialism doesn't imply method.

Then, give a proper definition...just one more time...pretty please?

And: none of the definitions I offered, to my thinkin', implied a method...all of 'em just stated what socialism is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:15 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:31 pm The hard evidence for these things is dubious at best...

100 million dead is a low estimate, involving not even all of the known cases. It's the BEST it gets.

It's almost certainly true that Socialism killed far more in the last century. We don't know precisely how many more, but more.

Socialism has caused the death of zero people.
People kill people, and there is nothing in socialism capable of killing.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:04 pm Socialism has caused the death of zero people.

In a sense, that's right. "Socialism" is just a belief...and it's not until it mixes with people that other people start to die.

So we can say that Socialism is unobjectionable, so long as no human believes in it.

Here's the kind of socialism you can actually criticize righteously, fake socialism: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLlHpsZjPnc

...just don't call it socialism.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:34 pm ...just don't call it socialism.

Describe how your Socialism is different from other Socialisms, such that your Socialism will not do what other Socialisms have, in every case, done.

Or realize you're actually talking about the same "Socialism."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:35 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:34 pm ...just don't call it socialism.

Describe how your Socialism is different from other Socialisms, such that your Socialism will not do what other Socialisms have, in every case, done.

Or realize you're actually talking about the same "Socialism."

How can he evidence his benign socialism when he can't even tell you what it is?

Best I can tell, from his various aphoristic posts:

It has sumthin' to do with all needs bein' met.

It has sumthin' to do with folks not bein' able to profit (they should only be able to make a living).

It has sumthin' to do not bein' able to to own intellectual property.

It has sumthin' to with folks bein' free by lettin' others -- experts -- make all the decisions.

It has sumthin' to do with takin' undeserved wealth from folks (which, of course, is any wealth cuz no one ought to make a profit).

Sure sounds like garden-variety, run of the mill, socialism/communism to me. Not seein' anything benign there.

What am I missin', Advocate?

-----

He's mentioned the Kaiser (emperor) a few times, so mebbe his socialism is a monarchy...the benevolent ruler deal.

Me, I could get behind a Emperor Norton...

While I don't think pure Socialism nor pure capitalism are very good solutions by themselves, it seems to me that a healthy economy is going to be one with both private enterprise and public assistance programs as well as government regulation to prevent various market failures. I would think the trick is balancing out the two so that power cannot be monopolized by the few against the many, while, at the same time, preserving economic incentives and various basic freedoms and human rights.

[quote="Gary Childress" post_id=507221 time=1618340436 user_id=6477]
While I don't think pure Socialism nor pure capitalism are very good solutions by themselves, it seems to me that a healthy economy is going to be one with both private enterprise and public assistance programs as well as government regulation to prevent various market failures. I would think the trick is balancing out the two so that power cannot be monopolized by the few against the many, while, at the same time, preserving economic incentives and various basic freedoms and human rights.
[/quote]

There must be an established baseline below which no person is allowed to fall, but if society is worth it's own existence it will help everyone be their best.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:00 pm While I don't think pure Socialism nor pure capitalism are very good solutions by themselves, it seems to me that a healthy economy is going to be one with both private enterprise and public assistance programs as well as government regulation to prevent various market failures. I would think the trick is balancing out the two so that power cannot be monopolized by the few against the many, while, at the same time, preserving economic incentives and various basic freedoms and human rights.

There must be an established baseline below which no person is allowed to fall, but if society is worth it's own existence it will help everyone be their best.

When you say, "help everyone be their best," what would that entail? Or how would you picture a society that accomplishes that? For example, I might say that a society ought to allow people to be their best but to help them seems like it might run into a kind of risk of having an overbearing government, perhaps?

Granted, I'm probably betraying an internalization of the American political lexicon when I say the above...perhaps?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:17 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:00 pm While I don't think pure Socialism nor pure capitalism are very good solutions by themselves, it seems to me that a healthy economy is going to be one with both private enterprise and public assistance programs as well as government regulation to prevent various market failures. I would think the trick is balancing out the two so that power cannot be monopolized by the few against the many, while, at the same time, preserving economic incentives and various basic freedoms and human rights.

There must be an established baseline below which no person is allowed to fall, but if society is worth it's own existence it will help everyone be their best.

When you say, "help everyone be their best," what would that entail? Or how would you picture a society that accomplishes that? For example, I might say that a society ought to allow people to be their best but to help them *seems like it might run into a kind of risk of having an overbearing government, perhaps?

*

[quote="Gary Childress" post_id=507288 time=1618352242 user_id=6477]
When you say, "help everyone be their best," what would that entail? Or how would you picture a society that accomplishes that? For example, I might say that a society ought to [b][i][u]allow[/u][/i][/b] people to be their best but to [b][i][u]help[/u][/i][/b] them seems like it might run into a kind of risk of having an overbearing government, perhaps?
[/quote]

Enabling generally, there's all kinds of ways that can be done. Think of society as a body. How should it treat it's parts? What best enables other improvements? Society needs to be for the good of every individual and it's in every individual's best interest to become their best selves because only the best version of themselves can have the best lives for them. So, whatever makes that happen. The individual good and the collective good require each other.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:57 pm There must be an established baseline below which no person is allowed to fall, but if society is worth it's own existence it will help everyone be their best.

Where's your definition of "real Socialism"? Are we skipping over that again?