"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." ~Seneca, tutor & advisor to a Caesar — 180 Proof

That’s a beauty of a quote.

Always been a favorite of mine.

Simone didn't want to sustain her life but rather to live it. — Nikolas

She did neither. So much for "grace".

This thread could have been interesting if it's thesis wasn't supplied by asinine quotes:

Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. — Nikolas

while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” — Nikolas

No qualification, no real argument, just an blind assertion. Only adequate response is, "no". Not only in regards to the commentary on socialism, as shallow as it is brief, but to democracy, which doesn't "attached all possible value to each man", or "seek equality in liberty" and other vague unqualified statements.

liberty is being rejected for the security of becoming "a mere number" — Nikolas

"Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, — Nikolas

Insane. Absolutely insane. We are living in a time of unprecedented individualism as demonstrated by the self-centered response of Western countries in response to Covid. People have in fact become a "mere number", a sacrifice to a pandemic or sacrificed others, because they couldn't bear to wear a mask for their own or others protection, they had to eat indoors because they couldn't bear to go months without being served, people demanded that they be able to shop indoors. THE GOD DAMN CEO OF GOFUNDME SAID THAT 1/3rd OF DONATIONS ARE TO COVER MEDICAL COSTS.

There is an interesting debate to be had between democracy and capitalism and socialism but we won't find it here.

"Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity,
— Nikolas

Insane. Absolutely insane. We are living in a time of unprecedented individualism as demonstrated by the self-centered response of Western countries in response to Covid. — Maw

What is an individual? Is it the same as a blind opinion defending what Man has become defined by collectives or is it a person's striving to become themselves?

You are not describing individuals but the mindset Plato described in the "Ship of Fools" analogy. These mutinous crewmen all considered themselves as individuals and qualified to steer the ship. They were fools since they didn't know the way home but acted like they did. Are they individuals IYO or just like fools which we celebrate every day?

There is an interesting debate to be had between democracy and capitalism and socialism but we won't find it here. — Maw

If that would happen, what in your mind would be the point of view and the most important topics on such a broad and complex issue? Assuming people could talk about the same issues, that is.

I think starts of well with saying:

But it is a mistake to oppose democracy and socialism: the former is a political system, the second is an economic system. Democracy is better contrasted to totalitarianism, and socialism is better contrasted to capitalism. — Bitter Crank

I don't personally care to spend time on the topic currently, but maybe another time.

But I would disagree with @Bitter Crank in regards to the a priori contrast between democracy as a political system and socialism as an economic system. We know such a contrast was untrue for Feudalism, a social system whereby political elites obtained economic surplus by appropriating from the peasantry. This is an integration of the economic and political. Separating the economic and the political spheres when conceptualizing post-Capitalist socio-economic structures is an unfortunate byproduct of Capitalist realism, as under Capitalism, it is the market imperatives that provide the coercive measures to supply the economic surplus which had previously been ensured by militaristic power behind the aristocratic elite. (Albeit the "rules of the game" under Capitalism e.g. property rights, worker rights, regulatory apparatus, etc. are indeed political constructs, so the demarcation of politics and economics is more illusory than at first appearance). So the question for Socialists is...how would we reintegrate the political and the economic in order to avoid coercion through market imperative while also avoiding coercion through class exploitation? I would say it probably looks something like (as @180 Proof suggested) economic democracy

Some people cannot ponder ideals but insist on arguing their devolution into fragments. Equality as the ideal of the Preamble to the American Constitution is one thing while the ideal of equality as obedience to statist slavery is another.

Apparently as we are, we are incapable of both. The ideal of equality in freedom falls victim to greed and corruption while equality for statist slavery also falls victim to greed and corruption. It is just harder to get rid of.

The seeker of wisdom with the love of philosophy ponders why it is so and if change is possible while normal people are content to argue back and forth between fragments of ideals. Everything turns in circles. It is nature's way.

But I would disagree with Bitter Crank in regards to the a priori contrast between democracy as a political system and socialism as an economic system. We know such a contrast was untrue for Feudalism, a social system whereby political elites obtained economic surplus by appropriating from the peasantry. This is an integration of the economic and political. — Maw

In Europe feudalism can be viewed as the result of when the state is incapable of gaining and upholding a centralized power. Simply put it, when those in power have basically no ability to create a central power, then the last option is to simply divide the land to your allies to the size that is governable. Yet for the pre-capitalist era the economic system referable to would be mercantilism as feudalism and mercantilism go quite well hand in hand. It is the remnants of mercantilism as the economic system that capitalism had to fight against and overcame in the 19th Century. Hence I think Bitter Crank does have a point because otherwise we won't notice the subtle differences between a political system and an economic one.

In Europe feudalism can be viewed as the result of when the state is incapable of gaining and upholding a centralized power. Simply put it, when those in power have basically no ability to create a central power, then the last option is to simply divide the land to your allies to the size that is governable. Yet for the pre-capitalist era the economic system referable to would be mercantilism as feudalism and mercantilism go quite well hand in hand. It is the remnants of mercantilism as the economic system that capitalism had to fight against and overcame in the 19th Century. Hence I think Bitter Crank does have a point because otherwise we won't notice the subtle differences between a political system and an economic one. — ssu

This is historically backwards. Feudal power on continental Europe was fragmented - began as decentralized - and eventually moved towards centralized power (e.g. French Absolutism which began the 16th and 17th century). Mercantilism, like Feudalism, requires politically-based extra-economic means through which to gain and establish commercial power, e.g. dominating ship building, monopoly of trade routes, provision of trading privileges, establishing trading posts in external markets, etc. through which to sell dear in fragmented markets. I'm not quibbling about "subtle differences" between systems. Obviously there are differences. I'm simply saying that, contra Bitter Crank, we shouldn't separate Democracy under politics and Socialism under economics.

Economic democracy (i.e. libertarian socialism ... syndical anarchism, etc), simply put, renders obsolete such (early) 19th century (& "Cold War") shibboleths. Politcal democracy (procedural) without economic democracy (substantive) has historically amounted to shareholder "security" at the laissez-faire expense of stakeholder "liberty" – that is, the liberty to participate in making decisions the consequences of which – costs usually far in excess of benefits – they and their communities will have to live with. — 180 Proof

:up:

This is historically backwards. — Maw

If you think that Europe had the Roman Empire before in Antiquity, it isn't. at all.

Having huge cities like Rome or Constantinople means that you have to have efficient trade roots and an advanced economic system. First collapse of globalization would be how Antiquity ended. With case of last bastions of feudalism, let's say Imperial Ethiopia, the story is different.

I'm simply saying that, contra Bitter Crank, we shouldn't separate Democracy under politics and Socialism under economics. — Maw

So modern social democracy is the problem? For part of the left social democracy isn't socialism, yet I think it's been the most successful part of the broader leftist movement. And they are OK with capitalism.

This a pretty nebulous digression that's irrelevant to what I'm saying.

What you were saying is that you don't personally care to spend on the topic currently, but maybe another time.

Perhaps then.

Assuming people could talk about the same issues, that is. — ssu

:roll:

Capitalism relies upon the notion of personal property. Let's all tell ourselves a big fat lie and assume, for the sake of argument, that personal property was obtained through honorable, moral, ethical, legal means and that we all start with the current baseline as it stands now. With that assumption, I posit that capitalism mandates that all costs must be internalized by the parties to a transaction. That means the corporation could not possibly exist, for it is specifically designed to have government hold a shareholder harmless, and relieve him of liability which is, let's face it, just a legal term for personal responsibility.

Thus, the corporation is anti-capitalist. You can't be a capitalist and still accept the protections of government via the corporate veil. This draws the distinction between pure capitalism and some hybrid. So I want to ask, if we can drift off of pure capitalism and the self-described "capitalists" are fine with that, then why can't they possibly entertain the idea that socialism has different flavors too?

If I own the air I breathe (property), and X wants to pump poison into it, shouldn't he have to negotiate the contractual right to do so, with me, in an arm's length transaction? And if I, and others like me, refuse to sell, then should he not be required to attach a hose to his car's exhaust pipe, bring it around into the driver's seat and intubate himself with that shit when he wants to drive?

The right is fond of calling out environmentalists for being hypocrites if they drive cars. But the right does not understand capitalism. If I conserve a gallon of gas, the supply goes up, the price goes down, demand is simulated, and the right pumps more poison in the air, which I have to breathe. So self-consistency of conservation is self-defeating. It takes society, acting in concert, to clean the air. Just like the right doesn't go take out Saddam by themselves, society has to spin up to do certain things. Again, quasi-socialism.

So we all decide to pump the brakes, step back, and come to the table as reasonable people, and negotiate. We say look, the social benefit to be received by allowing greedhead here to employ people, make cars, pump oil, sell cars to everyone so we all drive, is worth some poison in the air, whether James Riley over there likes it or not. But in return for not forcing greedhead to take personal responsibly for his actions, we will tax him and use some of the revenue to help offset the costs. "Is that okay with you, greedhead?" "Well, I'd rather not, but yeah, if I don't have to be a capitalist, then yeah, I'll go along." How about you, James Riley?" "Well, I don't like breathing poison, but cars are sweet, so yeah, as long as we try to ameliorate the poison."

So, because greedhead forgets the agreement, and has an inflated view of his importance to the world, I propose the following legislation:

"Henceforth, all who seek incorporation shall, before the granting of same, sign the following oath:
'In return for big government protecting me from having to take personal responsibility for my own actions, and for allowing me to socialize the costs thereof onto the backs of innocent third parties who do not agree to assume the same, I hereby promise to not hold myself out to the world as being self-made, risk-taking, rugged, or personally responsible. I shall publicly refute any who so hold me out. I also promise not to whine like a little bitch when I am taxed a tiny portion of my profits. Nor will I use those profits to purchase the whores and gigolos in the legislature or executive to lower my taxes, or to legislate additional limitations upon my personal responsibility, beyond those I am receiving by this socialist incorporation, which occurs in violation of the tenants of capitalism. Finally, I also stipulate to the piercing of the corporate veil, and exposure of all my personal assets for claw-back, no matter how well or where hidden, should I violate this oath.'"

Yeah, I'm good with that.

Now, if anyone wants to talk about how personal property came into possession, we can talk about that too.

End rant.

Democracy as understood today is flawed,
it permits that if the majority thinksthat 2 + 2 is 21 it can be voted and passed as a law and if you are against it you are against Democracy and you are going to be canceled. Yes the left knew that and they have the control now

Correct. If we read Lenin, for example (State and Revolution), democracy for some socialists is not an end in itself but a means to attain Socialism which in turn leads to Communism. And Socialism is clearly defined as "dictatorship" from Marx and Engels onwards.

A new definition of democracy is obviously needed. IMO it would have to be something like "rule according to the will and interests of the people" and not "rule by the people" which as history shows has been misinterpreted and misused by many totalitarian regimes.

democracy for some socialists is not an end in itself but a means to attain Socialism which in turn leads to Communism — Apollodorus

Democracy is too easy to subvert, though.

OTOH, neoliberal theorists are suspicious of democracy's power to thwart individual ambitions. They prefer governance through decrees, judicial rulings, and experts.

Democracy doesn't satisfy anybody, apparently.

Yes. The fundamental problem of socialism is that it started off as an offshoot of utopian philosophy. It was later modified to make it sound more “scientific” but it never succeeded in throwing off its utopian character.

As a result, socialism tends to appeal to emotions. Because it "sounds right" people tend to believe that it must be right and before they know it, they land in the realm of utopia from where there is no easy escape.

Essentially, socialism becomes a form of faith-based religion and some socialists from Marx and Engels to G B Shaw actually proposed making socialism into a religion that would supplant other belief systems.

Marx, Revolution and the Legacy of Utopian Socialism: A Critical Outline

A Postmodern Utopia? Heller and Fehér's Critique of Messianic Marxism

The other problem/problem of democracy is that people are a tad too quick to relinquish power to others. This lends itself to a wide spectrum of abuse of power, some forms of which are less obvious but potentially more dangerous than others.

Apparently in modern times equality in restraint and servitude has become more attractive than equality and liberty. No thinking required for a mob. — Nikolas

Democracy, as Plato warned, can be the tyranny of the demos, that is, the mob.

Tocqueville also said:

Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

And:

I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.

And:

Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.

The extent to which socialism promotes equality and liberty should not be overlooked. Without social security the restraint of poverty would leave millions in servitude. Without regulations children would still be in servitude to factory owners, our food supply adulterated with substances powerful manufacturers would still keep hidden from us, air and water quality would be far worse than they are. The list goes on.

The problem today is the new left. Marxist thinking is dominating social politics everywhere. They understood it a long time ago and played the battle on cultural grounds. Today they are winning and the right must wake up. The dialectics of bourgeois and proletarian has moved to identity politics and racism. The objective is always to attack individuality

individuality — Alexandros

A nice slogan, but one that rings hollow when one stops looking at an ideology and begins looking at actual people.

I think socialism's alleged promotion of equality and liberty is debatable. Socialism began as a reaction to the social and economic changes brought about by industrialization and urbanization, e.g. the dire situation of workers in textile factories, etc.

However, capitalist society saw itself forced to do something about those negative developments even without socialist revolution, hence liberalism ultimately won the debate.

The reaction of socialism to liberalism's victory was to invent new grievances or use old ones to dislodge social and economic groups from mainstream society and garner support for its agenda of seizing power for its leaders.

You will find that liberal or social democratic parties consist of a large number of Marxists trying to push those parties and the whole political system further and further in the direction of socialist dictatorship.

From that perspective, "social security" is just the bait used by clever socialists to promote communism, i.e. abolition of private property and total state control over society. This has happened far too often in recent history, and is still happening as we can see from China and other socialist regimes, for anyone to ignore it.

The problem today is the new left. Marxist thinking is dominating social politics everywhere. They understood it a long time ago and played the battle on cultural grounds. Today they are winning and the right must wake up. The dialectics of bourgeois and proletarian has moved to identity politics and racism. The objective is always to attack individuality — Alexandros

It doesn't look that way here. Both left and right are opposed to the status quo. Time for an epic adjustment.

I tend to agree with Alexandros.

Socialism has time and again failed in the economic sphere. Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Eastern Europe, all were forced to revert to capitalist methods in order to survive.

Socialist parties can no longer attract voters with tales of overabundant socialist economies hence they are trying to win over followers by making themselves champions of racial, ethnic, cultural, environmental and other issues that lend themselves to the emotional and psychological manipulation of the masses..

Socialism has time and again failed in the economic sphere. Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Eastern Europe, all were forced to revert to capitalist methods in order to survive.

You neglected socialism in the United States. We have had socialism ever since the New Deal. According to some even much earlier with the breakup of monopolies under the earlier Roosevelt.
— Apollodorus

Socialist parties can no longer attract voters — Apollodorus

He is an independent, but Bernie Sanders did quite well attracting voters.

The problem is the two-valued orientation, aka dualistic thinking, aka either/or, aka black/white; and the old fallacy of the slipper slope. And people not being schooled in definitions. And dummies like me sniffing around the cheese in the trap.

Correct. Proletarian vs bourgeois has progressed to black vs white, female vs male and anything else that promotes a "divide and rule" policy.

The problem is the two-valued orientation, — James Riley

I don't know, it's been working for thousands of years. Why abandon it?