the limits of fascism

[Immanuel Can]

This, you want me to believe you actually read this as glee at other's suffering? And you think you're going to prompt some sort of "shame" reaction by so grossly misrepresenting what I said?

Do you not thank God that you have more than others?

You're twisting again.

Gratitude to God does not entail contempt for others: in fact, those two are incompatible motives. A person who knows that he has been graciously given things he never deserved by a God who has had unmerited compassion upon him and given him more than he needs has a strong motive both for gratitude and for charity. And he has a deep sense that he is responsible if he does not.

But I think you knew that, before you even framed this response. So I'm not at all impressed with the "What me?" act.

[Immanuel Can]

>Funny. Socialism has spread misery and oppression across the world.

Nope

The kind of socialism he's talking about has.
The kind of socialism he's talking about hasn't.

But that's a really great question, S.

We know EXACTLY what kind of "Socialism" I'm referring to. It's the kind that's existed everywhere it has existed, anywhere in the world...Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe...we have tons of examples, so there's no question about what I'm referring to.

So the only question is, "What alleged 'Socialism' is HE referring to?"

He seems to think Socialism can be different, so we should ask him what would make his new version of "Socialism" different from the Socialisms that have existed thus far. What would keep it from becoming the kind of economic disaster, the kind of functional dictatorship, that every other Socialist regime has undeniably become. And what would prevent his "Socialism" from adding to the pile of well over 100 million corpses that the other Socialisms are responsible for producing?

So, yeah: great point. We're "speaking past each other" because we don't even have one example of what he's talking about, or even what it would look like if he was ever allowed to make it.

[Skepdick]

We know EXACTLY what kind of "Socialism" I'm referring to. It's the kind that's existed everywhere it has existed, anywhere in the world...Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe...we have tons of examples, so there's no question about what I'm referring to.

Well, yeah! That's how tautologies work. What's "socialism" THAT! *points finger at list of failed states*

What's an idiot? THAT *points finger at Immanuel Can*

So the only question is, "What alleged 'Socialism' is HE referring to?"

I am referring to the USA.

And now you are going to tell me it's not Socialist.... Yeaaaah. It is.

Why? because <insert some fuzzy-matching that ticks all the boxes and arrives at the conclusion that I want>

He seems to think Socialism can be different

It is different! USA Socialism is obviously different to Venezuela's Socialism!

So, yeah: great point. We're "speaking past each other" because we don't even have one example of what he's talking about, or even what it would look like if he was ever allowed to make it.

Well, no shit he doesn't have an example. Any example given will invoke apologetics on your behalf.

[Immanuel Can]

So the only question is, "What alleged 'Socialism' is HE referring to?"

I am referring to the USA.

The USA isn't Socialist. Not because I say so, but because it factually isn't.

Well, no shit he doesn't have an example. The only place you are looking for examples is the graveyard.

Not "the graveyard." China's very much alive, it seems. So is North Korea. Venezuela and Cuba...well, they've got one foot in the grave, but that's Socialism for you.

No, what I'm pointing to is the real world. I still have no idea what he's pointing to.

[Skepdick]

The USA isn't Socialist. Not because I say so, but because it factually isn't.

Facts don't determine what socialism is. Definitions do.

By any definition of Socialism the USA is Socialist (because I know a trick Wittgenstein taught me).

No, what I'm pointing to is the real world. I still have no idea what he's pointing to.

I am pointing at the United Socialist States of America.

[Immanuel Can]

I know a trick Wittgenstein taught me

And yet...I remain uninterested in that.

[Skepdick]

And yet...I remain uninterested in that.

Well, OK but...

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Where social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity.

Equity (otherwise known as "capital") is the primary mode of social ownership in the USA.

So it's socialism. Or capitalism. Same fucking thing!

[tillingborn]

This, you want me to believe you actually read this as glee at other's suffering?

That is a real possibility: "In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. So that they may be urged the more to praise God. The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens to the damned." Thomas Aquinas

You're twisting again.

Call it that if you wish. I am trying to clarify whether what you are not saying, is in fact what is implied.

Gratitude to God does not entail contempt for others: in fact, those two are incompatible motives. A person who knows that he has been graciously given things he never deserved by a God who has had unmerited compassion upon him and given him more than he needs has a strong motive both for gratitude and for charity. And he has a deep sense that he is responsible if he does not.

Here for instance. Do you mean a person who knows that he has not been graciously given things he never deserved by a God who has had unmerited, or even merited lack of compassion upon him and not given him more than he needs doesn't have a strong motive both for gratitude and for charity?
Does it mean that you don't deserve anything that you have?

[Immanuel Can]

Does it mean that you don't deserve anything that you have?

Indeed so.

For it must be manifest to all of us that we come into this world naked, and we leave with nothing. In between, every single thing we get is a gift. In the meanwhile, we have opportunities that we can use to help or to hurt others...and we answer to God for what we do with those opportunities.

But nothing we own is ours. It's all a "stewardship," if you're familiar with that term.

[Immanuel Can]

... social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity....

Well, there you differ from John Locke, and from Capitalism as well.

There is no "collective ownership," just as there is no "collective moral responsibility." Those terms are actually oxymorons. What Socialists say is "collective" ownership is actually just ownership by state dictators; with a mere nominal nod to everybody else who, get actually control of nothing.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=504832 time=1617043878 user_id=9431]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=504818 time=1617038591 user_id=17350]
... social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity....[/quote]
Well, there you differ from John Locke, and from Capitalism as well.

There is no "collective ownership," just as there is no "collective moral responsibility." Those terms are actually oxymorons. What Socialists say is "collective" ownership is actually just ownership by state dictators; with a mere nominal nod to everybody else who, get actually control of nothing.
[/quote]

Ownership is certainty of access and control, and "collective ownership" as a concept makes perfect sense.

[Immanuel Can]

Ownership is certainty of access and control, and collective ownership makes perfect sense.

It doesn't. A "collective" can't "control" anything. It has no individual identity. It's an amorphous mass, that swings like the tides as its members shift and change. It has no particular consciousness, no ethics, and no sense of responsibility, because no particular agent is responsible for it.

That's why mobs have no brain, and do such wicked things: collectives can't think. The thinking of one member has no significant impact on the whole. And they can't "own" anything. Only individuals can "own."

But like other brainless things -- tides, hurricanes, floods -- collectives do have destructive power.

[Doug1943]

The word "socialism" is used by different people to mean different things.

To have a productive argument with someone who is using it to mean full-on socialism -- not social-democratic welfare state measures, not union reps on boards of directors, but the end of capitalism .... you need to ask them how the price of a loaf of bread will be set, or the price of an automobile. (For afficionados, the "Socialist Calculation Question".)

In my experience, most socialists haven't thought about that.

Put it concretely: you are going to be manufacturing automobiles -- or solar-powered bicycles, whatever -- and you need to decide out of what to make a key component. You have two possible materials. Both perform equally well in the characteristics they need to have, both have equal impact on the environment, both are equally easy to machine. How do you choose? (The "you" here can be plural, the assembled workers Soviet, which will vote on the choice. How should they choose?)

It's a somewhat unfamiliar situation for most of us, so start by asking: you want to buy a new laptop or tablet, and you have a choice of two brands. They have equal performance characteristics, equal reliability, equal aesthetic value. In fact, they're physically identical, and identical in all respects regarding performance, environmental impact, etc.

To make it really easy, let's say that they are actually the same model of a given brand, but they are being offered by two different shops, both close to your house. How would you choose? [I suppose I should say, the only way in which they are different is that one is twice the price of the other.] So, which do you choose?

[Skepdick]

It doesn't. A "collective" can't "control" anything.

Cooperative multitasking is one model for collective control/coordination.

In macro-economic terms it's known as division of labour.

It has no individual identity.

Every participant in the distributed system has an "identity", so that other participants in the system can uniquely refer to them and directly address them.

Colloquially we call them names. At larger scale, we call them ID numbers/social security numbers.

It's an amorphous mass, that swings like the tides as its members shift and change. It has no particular consciousness, no ethics, and no sense of responsibility, because no particular agent is responsible for it.

That's a very peculiar view-point. Which particular agent in your family is responsible for your family remaining ethical?

That's why mobs have no brain, and do such wicked things: collectives can't think.
The thinking of one member has no significant impact on the whole. And they can't "own" anything. Only individuals can "own."

So do you get to have any input any decision-making that takes place in your household, or does your wife wear the pants?

But like other brainless things -- tides, hurricanes, floods -- collectives do have destructive power.

What has your family recently destroyed?

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't. A "collective" can't "control" anything.

Cooperative multitasking is one model for collective control/coordination.

In macro-economic terms it's known as division of labour.

You're missing the point completely. If you are only a member in a collective, you actually have so little power you don't actually "control" anything. The mob controls you.

It has no individual identity.

Every participant in the distributed system has an "identity",

Yes, every participant, considered merely as an individual, does: but the collective whole has no definite identity of its own. It has only the collective total of all the different personalities, intentions, directions and volitions in the group. When you're a member of the mob, you lose your power to the mob.

In your objection, you've fallen into what is called "fallacy of composition." It's the belief that if something is true of an individual item, then it's true of the composite whole of many items. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... omposition

Individual persons have control of their actions; but in a mob, no singular intelligence or moral conscience controls the whole. Instead, the whole is controlled only by the total direction of the group, regardless of intelligence or morals.

All the "family" stuff you cite is irrelevant, so should be ignored. Even a "family" is not charged in court as a unity, if one of the members commits a crime. There's good reason for that: the court does not make the fallacy of composition, in that case. Moral culpability is personal, not collective.