IDK, I feel like getting assaulted or killed by a party of raiding tribesmen and being shot by some state security service is an equally bad outcome, equally limiting one's freedom. However, with modern states, your risk of dying from homicide is orders of magnitude lower. Existent hunter gatherers have a greater share of their people dying in conflict than Europe did from 1914-1945. This is not even the most violent period in Europe's civilized history either. The Thirty Years War killed about 2 1/2 times more of the German population than both World Wars combined. The Huguenot War in France killed 14 times the share of the population that the First World War did. The bloodiest day in British military history is probably the start of the Somme, but it might be surpassed by the Battle of Townton. But even if we go with the revised lower figures for Townton, the British population at that point was a tiny fraction of the size and it had no large empire to draw on for manpower. In that one day, about 1-2% of the male population hacked and slashed each other to death.

Nor was treatment of prisoners better when states were less developed. At least today, nations make pains to hide their atrocities. Even the Nazis made such efforts. But in antiquity public torture was a norm, and in early antiquity, "because we want your stuff and to take slaves," was considered a legitimate declared casus belli.

Many European states have a homicide rate around 1-2 per 100,000. Now, you aren't free to do what you want if someone kills you. If you're 1-2,000 times more likely to be killed, that seems like a constriction on freedom. Nor are you free to read all the great works of world literature and philosophy unless there is a library, an internet connection, or you are very, very rich (and thus likely taking other's freedom). That sort of positive freedom sure seems important.

@NOS4A2

Some have suggested going more or less in the opposite direction than what you suggest.
That's assuming you suggest no state, government, taxes, all that, which I might have misunderstood.
For example, in order to deal with climate change, pollution, environmental concerns, etc, worldwide cooperation (or policing) of some sort might be needed.
Then again, I'm not quite sure what your idea is (apart from some things you seemingly detest).

By the way, individuals may live, say, 100 years (optimistically); outside of that, it's not really meaningful to speak of them (me) reaping the fruit of their (my) labor, or ownership of anything.
Subsequent generations may however "reap the fruit" of climate change, pollution, etc.
Would such concerns be irrelevant in the name of radical individualism (anarchy of sorts)?

People in at least reasonably decent societies willingly share the necessary resources required to keep that society operating and solvent. Sometimes the resources are gathered in a. purely voluntary manner -- the hat is passed and individuals contribute what they can contribute. Hat-passing works in small groups.

Sometimes people are asked for contributions. Public Radio stations ask for donations about 3 times a year. They'll take any donation, but they generally suggest amounts. The Girl Scouts sell cookies. You get a box of cookies and part of the price goes to the organization. Capitalism in general works that way: you buy stuff and some of the money goes to the organization (like the stockholders).

For the expensive heavy lifting activities that a society needs--bridges, sewers, hospitals, schools, social services--we share resources through taxation. It's sharing, not expropriation. The pharaohs expropriated some grain from the peasants to pay for pyramids that did absolutely nothing for the peasants. Sharing through taxation maintains the quality of the society so that everyone can live a reasonably fulfilling life.

The better the quality of life a society desires, the more sharing of resources that is required. More is required because a very good quality of life for everyone is expensive. It's much cheaper to operate a shit hole society. Where do you want to live? Venezuela or Sweden?

Of course, the argument that taxation is theft isn't really that different from the anarchist argument that property is theft. If we are idealists and accept both arguments, then property taxes are kind of a wash no?

Sharing might do well to describe the distribution, but stealing, plundering, or pilfering describes the acquisition. Sharing is good and all but if you’re distributing stolen goods I’m not sure it’s any less evil for the simple reason it is not theirs to share.

There are two means by which a man can acquire the resources to sustain himself: through work or robbery. He can apply his own effort towards nature and maybe do so in voluntary effort with others, or he can sit back and take from those who do. One is just, the other is unjust. One is moral the other is immoral. One is social, the other is anti-social. If we are to have a society it needs to be premised on the first rather than the latter.

He can apply his own effort towards nature and maybe do so in voluntary effort with others, or he can sit back and take from those who do. — NOS4A2

Ah, great description of anti-social capitalism!

Hey, NOS4A2, we're not in the same city, let alone the same ball park. We're not going to agree.

Graft and corruption (of the sort that characterized the Chicago political machine for many years, is parasitical. But honest government is lean, efficient, and effective. Government does work that either does not (or should not) make money. Take the disease surveillance activities of public health departments. Controlling transmissible disease requires an agency to actively scan the community for disease -- syphilis, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, West Nile fever, cryptosporidium, and so on. It's not a money maker. Someone needs to measure school performance -- else billions go to waste. Education supervision like public health is not a money maker.

Mining? Agriculture? Transportation? Manufacturing? Warehousing? Retail? Capitalism does these (and others activities) because these are the money makers. In Democratic Socialism, the state DOES NOT take the place of business. If it does, then you end up with state capitalism, which is what the USSR was. Not that great. What happens in Democratic Socialism is that business and workers pay higher taxes (than in the US) to maintain a healthy, productive society. Democratic Socialism is not communism at all, and it's not classic socialism, either, because profit making corporations are a key part of the system -- just not quite as much profit making.

That’s the problem. Capitalism is present in all systems, and any system without it is inconceivable. The only difference between the present system and any so-called socialist one is that socialists would transfer the ownership and management of capital from private hands to the hands of some coterie of beneficent managers, usually a state. But that system is as purely capitalist as the next, and always will be.

This is apparent in your own system. You need to take other people’s money to invest in what you deem best for society, a task which I fear no one has quite yet figured out. Sure, they aren’t money-making ventures, but that’s because you don’t need to make money when you’re taking other people’s money.

Hello BC,

Democratic Socialism is not communism at all, and it's not classic socialism, either, because profit making corporations are a key part of the system -- just not quite as much profit making. — BC

So is the idea basically that Democratic Socialism proffers a welfare state with higher taxes, along with a non-profit government?

I am trying to understand the foil to Democratic Socialism. I think everyone agrees that the government should be non-profit, so it probably isn't that. Presumably the foil is a laissez-faire scheme with limited government, low taxes, and no welfare benefits coming from the state?

The other thing I often do not understand with respect to socialism or Democratic Socialism is how the change is supposed to be effected. For example, what is the motivation by which a capitalist society would transform itself into a Democratic Socialist society?

In Catholic social thought the closest thing to socialism is an emphasis on the common good,* but this emphasis would be understood to be homogenous throughout the society, affecting both the governmental and non-governmental spheres. The odd thing about Democratic Socialism, prima facie, is that it is some sort of hybrid. It requires a business sector that is strongly for-profit, a government that is strongly non-profit, and a tax scheme that provides a sort of distributive equality. I suppose I am not convinced that the tensions of a hybrid model are ultimately sustainable.

* And a preferential option for the poor, but let's leave that aside for now because it is more explicitly religious.

what is the motivation by which a capitalist society would transform itself into a Democratic Socialist society? — Leontiskos

Perhaps purity of thought :roll: , or the attraction of living on the dole. :smile:

So is the idea basically that Democratic Socialism proffers a welfare state with higher taxes, along with a non-profit government? — Leontiskos

More or less.

I am trying to understand the foil to Democratic Socialism. I think everyone agrees that the government should be non-profit, so it probably isn't that. Presumably the foil is a laissez-faire scheme with limited government, low taxes, and no welfare benefits coming from the state? — "Leontiskos

That describes neoliberalism -- weak state, strong corporations, minimal regulation, few benefits, everybody is on their own.

The other thing I often do not understand with respect to socialism or Democratic Socialism is how the change is supposed to be effected. For example, what is the motivation by which a capitalist society would transform itself into a Democratic Socialist society? — "Leontiskos

European countries have had democratic socialism certainly since WWII but before as well.

Why would capitalism convert to any form of democratic socialism? Survival and crudely obvious necessity.

The American economy in the last quarter of the 19th century and into the 20th was "the gilded age" a period of extremely disproportion concentrations of wealth. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Progressives (like Theadore Roosevelt) began reforms which would eventually reduce the disparity of wealth. The New Deal and WWII was financed largely through extremely high taxes on wealth. Between 1929 and 1945 the amount of concentrated wealth was roughly sliced in half -- fewer millionaires by half.

After WWII, there was a consensus formed among government, labor, and the corporations (and their stockholders) to NOT return to conditions of the gilded age. During the years between 1945 and 1974 the US was roughly democratic socialist -- high taxes, very generous benefits, good wages and cooperative labor agreements, and so on. During this time, business, labor, and government all did well. The WWII debt was paid off; FHA, VA, NDEA, and other benefit programs helped working class people achieve greater education, better employment, and better housing. "The common good" won out,

After 1975, there was a reaction during which aspirants for greater private wealth and power effected lower tax rates, reduced benefits, union busting, and lower wages. They had had enough of that "common good" crap. Between 1975 and 2023 there was another extraordinary accumulation of wealth in a relatively small number of hands.

The public which had previously supported and benefitted from a democratic socialist period no longer held together, and they lost out.

And a preferential option for the poor, but let's leave that aside for now because it is more explicitly religious. — Leontiskos

The American ruling class also has a preferential option for the poor, namely, "fuck 'em".

I suppose I am not convinced that the tensions of a hybrid model are ultimately sustainable. — Leontiskos

It has not been sustainable in the USA -- perhaps the least fertile soil for socialism of any kind. Europe has maintained its democratic socialist systems much better. Seems like part of Brexit was an effort to get out from under the democratic socialism of the EU.

Whether the EU can maintain its democratic socialist programs during the more turbulent times ahead--increased pressures from climate refugees, global heating problems at home, war next door, god knows what else, remains to be seen. I hope they can for their sake.

, thanks for setting out the shape of your thought in this area.

My general approach, coming from Christianity, is wary of utopianism and scapegoating. It seems to me that often when we encounter a problem we are liable to blame it on the nearest available thing to hand. Then we eliminate the obstacle or achieve the means that we believed would be sufficient to overcome the problem, and yet the problem persists. We inevitably find that the problem was not caused in the way we supposed, and that it is much more complex and intractable. In the end this mentality is a form of scapegoating for the sake of some ideal (utopia). I mostly theorize that communism and socialism have taken this approach and elevated it to a societal key.

For example, a socialist might look at wealth disparity or the exploitation of the poor and point to capitalism as the culprit. But is it really true that significant wealth disparity and exploitation or the poor was absent before the industrial age and the rise of capitalism? If we slay capitalism on the hill will these problems really disappear? I am doubtful.

But Democratic Socialism is interesting insofar as it is a hybrid. It seeks to wed capitalism to social justice, and is therefore not as prone to making of capitalism an easy scapegoat. But again, I wonder whether the poles of this hybrid are symbiotic or competitive. For example, if the socialist aims at an equal distribution of wealth, and capitalism produces a disparity of wealth, then it is not clear that socialism can leverage capitalism on that score. In general I think that neoliberalism and libertarianism are unworkable, but I am not yet convinced that socialistic approaches are the proper alternative.

...Anyway, I just wanted to place a few of my cards on the table.

More or less.

That describes neoliberalism -- weak state, strong corporations, minimal regulation, few benefits, everybody is on their own. — BC

Alright, we are on the same page with this.

Why would capitalism convert to any form of democratic socialism? Survival and crudely obvious necessity. — BC

Because if no change occurs then class warfare would lead to the demise of the capitalist system?

The meta-narrative here is surely Marxist, is it not? The orbit is around class warfare, economic factors, the means of production, etc.?

During the years between 1945 and 1974 the US was roughly democratic socialist -- high taxes, very generous benefits, good wages and cooperative labor agreements, and so on. — BC

Okay. :up:

What do you make of the alternative narrative which sees the United States as a country where competition drives industry and social welfare is achieved by private institutions, such as churches, communities, voluntary institutions, and colleges, rather than by government intervention? Do you see this as historically accurate? Is there a value in subsidiarity?

It has not been sustainable in the USA -- perhaps the least fertile soil for socialism of any kind. Europe has maintained its democratic socialist systems much better. Seems like part of Brexit was an effort to get out from under the democratic socialism of the EU.

Whether the EU can maintain its democratic socialist programs during the more turbulent times ahead--increased pressures from climate refugees, global heating problems at home, war next door, god knows what else, remains to be seen. I hope they can for their sake. — BC

From my limited knowledge, it would seem that Democratic Socialism requires something of an insular mentality, because its foundation is a robust collectivism. But then Democratic Socialism and anti-insular mentalities, such as the "open borders" movement, get lumped together under the 'progressive' banner, even though one is the death knell of the other. If this is right, then immigration is an intrinsic danger to collectivisms, and it is also perhaps the most serious internal danger to these arrangements in Europe, including the EU.