I don't know what to title this.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I’m fine with you not wanting to talk about terms. But it puzzles me a bit, because you brought up the term, “democratic socialism” in response to my earlier comment. Didn’t you do so as a way of saying I was incorrect in claiming there have never been any “socialisms” in place, on the national level

To be honest it had nothing to do with “incorrect.” It;s that something is disputed and/or is seen differently. Some of us count the democratic socialism associated with the Nordic model. This usage comes from Sanders and just identifies with that tradition because if nothing else it has a viable living energy at the moment. Like all things these terms have their practical, lived, changing histories. Emphasizing that just comes from my own tendency to embrace that kind of fluidity and the sense of disparate practical options. So I was more intervening in a discussion about socialism to open it up to more disparate visions. The goal being as I said to emphasize divergent and different views. Some of which admittedly flat reject one another, which is just part of it and certainly not dishonorable.

All I did, really, was invite more concepts to the party.

As a rule I am not very good about wondering if there is a “definitive” one. I just say, the history on that is messy, and…yay messiness.

…

Thanks for the clarification, ZN.

I’m a fan of “democratic socialism.” Big time. I prefer the American version to our Green Party by a great deal.

http://www.dsausa.org/

I’d happily vote DSA over the Greens if they ever expand enough to run national candidates, which I think they’re trying to do. Hopefully, local on up, all the way to the presidency someday.

MLK, Camus, Orwell, Helen Keller, Oscar Wilde are some notable DS folks, as is Cornel West right now.

My thing is, however, pointing out how something really can’t be judged — I know you’re not doing this — as a failure if it never got a chance to actually control its own destiny. I’m really interested in the practical, pragmatic, effective manner of how alternatives operate within certain contexts, and if those contexts allow it sufficient space to do its thing before they’re judged effective or a failure.

Again, I’d call most of what exists in the Scandinavian countries “social democracy,” rather than “democratic socialism.” But, regardless. Let’s call it “democratic socialism” for purposes of this discussion. It’s still operating within a foreign context with capitalism as the economic system, centrist and conservative coalition governments, programs, policies, etc. etc. . . . and then within a much larger international, neoliberal order. Can it really be said to “fail” under those conditions? Can it be said it was ever really tried?

Another shot at an analogy (all of this is fictional): I’ve discovered this miracle diet. I eat nothing but avocados five times a day, and have done so for the last year. My doctor is amazed. My cancer disappeared. My once high blood pressure has dropped to very safe levels. I no longer have a cholesterol problem, and it once was dangerously high. I feel great. I have a ton of energy.

I tell others about my diet and several try it. But none of them do away with their favorites while they eat the avocados too. They still load up on fries, mashed potatoes and gravy, bacon, hot dogs, soda and booze. Chemists look at the interactions between these things and conclude that most of the benefits of the avocados are negated. None of my friends who try the avocados improve their health.

“Socialisms” require, simply due to cause and effect, a certain measure of space to be what they are, and without that space and the absence of conflicting factors, they’re just not “effective” to the degree they can be — if at all.

(I’m not a scientist, or I’d try for an analogy with chemical compounds, interacting, etc. But hopefully you get the idea)

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

“Socialisms” require, simply due to cause and effect, a certain measure of space to be what they are, and without that space and the absence of conflicting factors, they’re just not “effective” to the degree they can be — if at all.

Well on that I don’t agree though I certainly recognize it’s one of the positions in the “many positions on this” universe I was alluding to.

As a rule you will find that I will always be at least somewhat against the idea that reason can sit here and predetermine in advance what is best and what isn’t. That’s why I always add that history is messy. I always side with the historians over the philosophers. I don’t believe in the validity of just deducing “correct concepts.” I’ve said that many times here in fact. It’s just quite simply an inveterate part of how I see things.

And history also tells us that there are philosopher’s who are dedicated to deductive reasoning from and and about pure concepts that way. So if I am going to say it’s a big world with lots of disparate views one this, that is certainly one of them.

But I always vote on the side of pragmatic open-endedness when it comes to that. I will always see the act of reason deducing things from pure concepts as something I just cannot endorse or accept.

That’s just who I am when it comes to these things.

…

Just my take from what you’ve written above: I think it’s another case of you not really reading what I’ve said. It comes across to me, at least, as a quick response after skimming, not a response after fully engaging with my post.

Basically, you completely miss that I AM talking about pragmatics, practical matters, in context, and how things function with other competing factions, views, policies, programs, etc. etc. historically.

This isn’t “predictive” for me. This is based on the observation of historical periods and the study thereof, and simple common sense. I tried to impart that by way of those analogies, which I think were pretty good. But I have a feeling you didn’t read them.

For socialisms to be effective — history demonstrates — they have to be able to hold the floor enough to enact at least the basics. If there are only aspects of socialism, within a counteracting environment of capitalism, which concentrates wealth, income, access and power at the top, it’s just not going to work as planned or hoped for. And THE most fundamentally important pillar of socialism is the replacement of the capitalist system with a democratized, cooperative, egalitarian economy.

Socialisms are fundamentally egalitarian and call for egalitarian results. If other forces knock down those structures and prevent egalitarian results, there is simply no way to say socialisms have had a fair chance to do their thing. Too many opposing forces are in play.

That’s been the history, and we see that playing out in Venezuela, for instance, right now. Not only inside that nation, but because of external, international pressures to prevent egalitarian options and results from ever starting up.

In short, I’m talking about pragmatics, cause and effect, common sense, the observation of what actually happens due to opposing political forces and ideologies, AND the study of this through history. I think you’re trying to reduce my view to a very narrow frame that doesn’t really fit.

Regardless, hope all is well and that you enjoy the weekend.

zn wrote:

Basically, you completely miss that I AM talking about pragmatics, practical matters, in context, and how things function with other competing factions, views, policies, programs, etc. etc. historically.

Not the same way I do. You have a tight view of historical logic, one that can lead to rational deductions. I just don’t think that way, like at all. The only thing in common there is the word “history,” which then in each of our cases means something completely different. When I say “history” I do not mean the same thing you do. For me history is not something that produces a logic and a pattern that can support rational deductions about what will work in the future that way.

And…this isn’t me “arguing.” Just talking about how I see things. There’s really nothing there to take umbrage at. Or if it were an argument there would never be a “winner.” Just 2 people comparing how differently they see things.

I don’t see history that way, either. Again, you misread me. I think you always have. I don’t believe in “historical inevitability/necessity” and I’ve mentioned that several times.

Ironically, I argue against the folks who say, “See, Socialism was tried in the USSR, and look what happend!! It must always fail, wherever it’s tried.” Ironically, they’re the real believers in historical necessity. I, on the other hand, think that context is everything, and that an attempt at actual socialisms in, say, America right now, couldn’t possibly result in the same kind of society as Russia after 1917. And that’s even if I accept their premise that Russia DID try socialisms back then, and I don’t. Not in any way, shape or form.

Contrary to your misunderstanding of my views, I see historical changes as contingent — I’ve read my Rorty too — and I think that’s just common sense. Different environment, different inputs, different human beings, different concatenation of events, are always going to lead to different results.

Seriously, I have no idea where you got the impression that I have this strict view of historical necessity. I’ve demonstrated that I don’t for years and years, so the only thing that makes sense to me is that you’ve been skimming what I’ve read — including follow ups like this.

Not that you owe me your undivided attention here, ever. Not saying that. But I wish you’d accept my word for my own vision of things, and it strikes me you just dismiss that.

Beyond all of that, I’d be interested in going back to the original discussion. Why do you think “socialisms” have been tried or even exist today? I still think we’re not seeing socialisms in the same way at all.

More irony: I think our view of history is similar.

Well, it looks like I posted before you altered your own.

Yeah, I can easily assume no malice. But if I think you’re misreading me, even with all the best intentions in the world, don’t you think it makes sense to correct the record?

Again, I don’t see that we’re far apart on “history” at all. I do think we’re far apart on what “socialism(s)” mean, etc. And how certain theories can function within an enemy camp. I just don’t see it working — again, historically, practically, pragmatically.

Am I glad to see aspects of it fighting for their space within the greater neoliberal framework? Definitely. That’s why I’d greatly prefer Sanders to any of the current folks running. And why I’d prefer European social democracy even to Sanders, whom I see as being a bit to the right of European versions.

But I want the whole thing, and I don’t think it can ever come close to doing what it’s supposed to do, as long as it only has fractions of a partial space to work with.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.

Billy_T wrote:

Have you read any good books lately?

Oryx and Crake.

.