2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[UKMikey]

We did have a prime minister named Boris but he was only a little bit totalitarian.

Not sure whether to go with Britannica's definition based in part on the writings of Engels or that of some random internet person who seems to have arbitrarily confused it with the umbrella term socialism. Think I'll stick with the former, thanks. Were the two terms interchangeably synonymous I'd've thought one of them would be superfluous.

At no stage did I say countries can't feature a mix of different economies, so I'm not sure what I've supposed to have "admitted" to, though.

 

[The Sprawl]

Did you also know the Baltimore Key Bridge collapsed? Crazy, right

No that was fully intentional. Yes, capitalism is not the reason anything succeeds. I'm glad you understood what I meant. It's not an economic "system", and it's not a government and it's not the reason for success or failure. This isn't a "reach" because I'm not looking to achieve any particular end other than to have an understanding of terms that fit with each other and have some explanatory power without being contradictory. That's why we end up at this understanding of the word "capitalism".

If this is uncomfortable to you, I'm ok with using the term capitalism to mean a version of socialism that's on the light end of the spectrum of economic control. That's how a lot of people use it, but it's not, in my view, a very helpful or illustrative use of the word, and it leads to confusion.

That was my point to you.

You've missed the ordering in this. Communism is an economic system based on a complete lack of personal property. If there's any irreducible component of it, that's it. Saying that it "carries" concepts like "redistribution" is not technically wrong, but it would be wrong to then say that taxation or redistribution is borrowed from, or a portion of, communism. Taxation and redistribution predate communism by a long way. It's not suddenly a little communist to tax and redistribute AFTER communism became a thing when it WASN'T communist when those things were done BEFORE communism became a thing.

You're accidentally doing what you complain about here:


By saying that taxation is communist, when it's NOT communist, and predates communism by a long way, and is not in any way a small amount of communism, you make yourself sound like a US right winger who is attaching communism to everything they don't like in order to make it sound bad. Taxation doesn't just predate communism, it's incompatible with communism, because taxation relies on personal property ownership.

Putting a sickle on something is not communist, even though it is an idea that can be associated with some specific instances of communism. Communism is an economic concept which corresponds to state (actually collective is better here) ownership of all property.

TL;DR Taxation is CLEARLY not communist.


=======================================
Total aside here, video games often provide a great example of capitalism. Games where you can trade with other players for profit are essentially always built with protections that prevent players from harming or threatening each other into a stolen or coerced exchange of goods. But there is no government or overriding goal beyond this, just a basic rule that says you can't hurt each other, now feel free to trade. And capitalism absolutely flourishes within this framework. Players trade with each other, and each player then becomes a little better off and the rising tide lifts all boats. Ultimately amazingly useful tools which were only available to the wealthiest players become affordable to poorer players, and a higher level of play is achievable by all. It's actually quite beautiful, in a very simplistic kind of way. It's too bad that government can't be as effective at stopping people from harming or coercing each other in the real world - because when it is done very effectively, the capitalist economic activity that forms within that framework is very powerful and beneficial.

...but there is no opportunity for a player to get control of the controls.

So you'd admit that there is no such thing as a success of capitalism? And that it's nonsensical to claim something as a victory of catipalism if you're not prepared to include the failures? Great! Then we're agreed on my original point.

And of course a system like capitalism can fail or succeed to different extents. Denying that is to deny reality. We can look at plenty of basket case countries of the last century and see its failures there. To call it simply a system working in the background, like chemistry, is deeply wrong, and you could go and spend the next decade studying economics and the work of people Danny Kahneman and Amos Tversky to see how people have dedicated their careers to studying its inherent moral contradictions.
There are no failures of chemistry because it relies on the objective constraints of quantum mechanics to lock its results in. You can misapply it, but that's different. Whereas the failures of capitalism are everywhere, and they're not there simply because the system of capitalism is being misapplied by stupid humans, like a stupid chemist mixing bleach and ammonia - they're there because capitalism has fundamental asymmetries of fairness built into it. There IS no way for capitalism to work without some people being 'used' by others along the way. It's like the second law of thermodynamics: entropy can decrease and order can increase, but only if it uses up entropy of other systems along the way.

"By saying that taxation is communist, when it's NOT communist, and predates communism by a long way, and is not in any way a small amount of communism, you make yourself sound like a US right winger who is attaching communism to everything they don't like in order to make it sound bad. Taxation doesn't just predate communism, it's incompatible with communism, because taxation relies on personal property ownership"

Are you seriously saying that if an idea turns up in one political or economic system...that that somehow precludes it turning up in any others? I take your point with taxation(there was plenty of taxation under communism in practise BTW; but in principle there really shouldn't have been); but again, an idea like Communism - just like any idea - is comprised of simpler parts, which are themselves comprised of simpler parts, etc. So to double down on this idea that sociopolitical systems are irreducible seems...contrary to the nature of reality. What's socialism made of? Lots of other stuff too, just like communism, a lot of which overlaps with communism, some of which overlaps with capitalism, some of which overlaps with stuff that has nothing to do with economics at all and is just about the classically liberal ideas of egalitarianism. And on and on, with lots of other parts, and all those parts, when related properly, are just what we call communism. How could it be otherwise? You only have to look closer at a definition to see the irreducibility melt away.

I'd write more but TL;DR - the problem seems to be this way you look at basic concepts as irreducible. Would 'partially communist' be the first descriptor that came to mind when I wanted to tell someone about the UK? No...but it's useful to realise that nevertheless...it is true, the country is partially communist, it has incorporated elements of communist philosophy into its structure of government, and to deny that is to deny the foundation of the NHS and our social care system and the political beliefs of the people involved in much of our left-wing heritage.
And the reason it's useful to realise it, is because it means you stop thinking about political definitions - all definitions - in an irreducible way. It actually helps clarify things when you can understand that definitions aren't irreducible; you end up making fewer semantic and conceptual errors.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm sure glad @Danoff is a parent as I don't think I'd have the patience to carry on with this conversation.

 

[Danoff]

So you'd admit that there is no such thing as a success of capitalism? And that it's nonsensical to claim something as a victory of catipalism if you're not prepared to include the failures? Great! Then we're agreed on my original point.

Well no, because your original point was that capitalism failed those countries. And so you can see how the above directly opposes your original point.

And of course a system like capitalism can fail or succeed to different extents. Denying that is to deny reality.

So here you identify that you're absolutely NOT accepting my explanation of capitalism, completely denying the agreement you pretended above. So you can definitely see that this does not support your original point, because you're the one refusing my understanding of capitalism. That's fine with me, if you want to talk about capitalism being a relaxed form of socialism, as most people do, let's do that! You seem to be incapable of seeing it any other way. So my response going forward will adopt your definition of capitalism, which is like a light socialism.

We can look at plenty of basket case countries of the last century and see its failures there.

Afghanistan is not a good example of light socialism (capitalism), and neither are any of your other examples. So very quickly you can see that your definition of capitalism, which I am attempting to use, doesn't fit your own argument. This is why it's so important not to pick poor definitions. Maybe when the person you're talking to says that your definition of a word is unhelpful and leads to confusion, you should consider that point.

To call it simply a system working in the background, like chemistry, is deeply wrong, and you could go and spend the next decade studying economics and the work of people Danny Kahneman and Amos Tversky to see how people have dedicated their careers to studying its inherent moral contradictions.
There are no failures of chemistry because it relies on the objective constraints of quantum mechanics to lock its results in. You can misapply it, but that's different. Whereas the failures of capitalism are everywhere, and they're not there simply because the system of capitalism is being misapplied by stupid humans, like a stupid chemist mixing bleach and ammonia - they're there because capitalism has fundamental asymmetries of fairness built into it.

Well not by my definition. By my definition it's impossible for it to fail, it's simply a description of reality. By YOUR definition, which you struggle to apply consistently for reasons I've point out, yes light socialism has some unfairness built into it. Because light socialism isn't heavy socialism, which would be greater attempt to squash unfairness. I'm not sure I'd automatically call "unfairness" a failure though. You'd have to establish that somehow.

There IS no way for capitalism to work without some people being 'used' by others along the way.

What do you mean "work"? And what do you mean by "used"? I do think it's possible for a system of light socialism to function without people's rights being abused, if that's what you mean. But it requires a lot of protections at the top to prevent government restrictions on human rights abuses from being eroded. That's hard to do.

Are you seriously saying that if an idea turns up in one political or economic system...that that somehow precludes it turning up in any others?

No. There's nowhere I'd advanced that point.

Communism - just like any idea - is comprised of simpler parts, which are themselves comprised of simpler parts, etc. So to double down on this idea that sociopolitical systems are irreducible seems...contrary to the nature of reality. What's socialism made of? Lots of other stuff too, just like communism, a lot of which overlaps with communism, some of which overlaps with capitalism, some of which overlaps with stuff that has nothing to do with economics at all and is just about the classically liberal ideas of egalitarianism. And on and on, with lots of other parts, and all those parts, when related properly, are just what we call communism. How could it be otherwise? You only have to look closer at a definition to see the irreducibility melt away.

You're trying to undefine each of these terms such that they don't have any "irreducible" meaning. Which makes discussion impossible and makes it irrelevant when you say the UK is a little communist. Because you've defined communist to be undefinable. Communism has people, for example. And the UK has people. Ergo, the UK is a little communist right? Let's ignore the fact that people predate communism and that "communism" is not a characteristic of "people" in the way that "people" can be a characteristic of "communism".

If A then B. If communism then people. You cannot logically reverse this operation to say IF B then A. If people then communism. This failure is called "Affirming the Consequent". You can't take anything and everything that communism entails and use it to entail communism.

You're looking for an IF A then B relationship where B, not A, is communism. If A then communism. For this relationship you need some kind of component that is intrinsic to communism and nothing else. Something "irreducibly" communist. Something like all property being owned by the collective. Fundamentally, communism is socialist. But that does not mean that socialism is automatically communist.

Likewise, a country may include some capitalism within it. But that does not mean that the capitalism is defined by that country. Afghanistan may contain some elements of capitalism, but it doesn't mean that capitalism entails Afghanistan.

Would 'partially communist' be the first descriptor that came to mind when I wanted to tell someone about the UK? No...but it's useful to realise that nevertheless...it is true, the country is partially communist, it has incorporated elements of communist philosophy into its structure of government, and to deny that is to deny the foundation of the NHS and our social care system and the political beliefs of the people involved in much of our left-wing heritage.
And the reason it's useful to realise it, is because it means you stop thinking about political definitions - all definitions - in an irreducible way. It actually helps clarify things when you can understand that definitions aren't irreducible; you end up making fewer semantic and conceptual errors.

Can you explain to me what elements of communism the UK has incorporated? I have a suspicion that you will list elements of socialism that you have confused as communist.

 

[TexRex]

I don't understand why it's difficult to differentiate between socialism and communism, and both detractors and apparent proponents (at minimum defenders) seem to struggle here. They are two different things, even if you may feel a similar way about both, and that they're two different things is okay.

 

[The Sprawl]

I don't understand why it's difficult to differentiate between socialism and communism, and both detractors and apparent proponents (at minimum defenders) seem to struggle here. They are two different things, even if you may feel a similar way about both, and that they're two different things is okay.

They're different, but they do overlap. That's all my argument boils down to. It's not saying that words like Communism are useless; it's just trying to get across the point that things are more complicated than just saying 'there's no such thing as a country that has any elements of communist philosophy in it'.

Well no, because your original point was that capitalism failed those countries. And so you can see how the above directly opposes your original point.

So here you identify that you're absolutely NOT accepting my explanation of capitalism, completely denying the agreement you pretended above. So you can definitely see that this does not support your original point, because you're the one refusing my understanding of capitalism. That's fine with me, if you want to talk about capitalism being a relaxed form of socialism, as most people do, let's do that! You seem to be incapable of seeing it any other way. So my response going forward will adopt your definition of capitalism, which is like a light socialism.


Afghanistan is not a good example of light socialism (capitalism), and neither are any of your other examples. So very quickly you can see that your definition of capitalism, which I am attempting to use, doesn't fit your own argument. This is why it's so important not to pick poor definitions. Maybe when the person you're talking to says that your definition of a word is unhelpful and leads to confusion, you should consider that point.


Well not by my definition. By my definition it's impossible for it to fail, it's simply a description of reality. By YOUR definition, which you struggle to apply consistently for reasons I've point out, yes light socialism has some unfairness built into it. Because light socialism isn't heavy socialism, which would be greater attempt to squash unfairness. I'm not sure I'd automatically call "unfairness" a failure though. You'd have to establish that somehow.

What do you mean "work"? And what do you mean by "used"? I do think it's possible for a system of light socialism to function without people's rights being abused, if that's what you mean. But it requires a lot of protections at the top to prevent government restrictions on human rights abuses from being eroded. That's hard to do.

No. There's nowhere I'd advanced that point.

You're trying to undefine each of these terms such that they don't have any "irreducible" meaning. Which makes discussion impossible and makes it irrelevant when you say the UK is a little communist. Because you've defined communist to be undefinable. Communism has people, for example. And the UK has people. Ergo, the UK is a little communist right? Let's ignore the fact that people predate communism and that "communism" is not a characteristic of "people" in the way that "people" can be a characteristic of "communism".

If A then B. If communism then people. You cannot logically reverse this operation to say IF B then A. If people then communism. This failure is called "Affirming the Consequent". You can't take anything and everything that communism entails and use it to entail communism.

You're looking for an IF A then B relationship where B, not A, is communism. If A then communism. For this relationship you need some kind of component that is intrinsic to communism and nothing else. Something "irreducibly" communist. Something like all property being owned by the collective. Fundamentally, communism is socialist. But that does not mean that socialism is automatically communist.

Likewise, a country may include some capitalism within it. But that does not mean that the capitalism is defined by that country. Afghanistan may contain some elements of capitalism, but it doesn't mean that capitalism entails Afghanistan.



Can you explain to me what elements of communism the UK has incorporated? I have a suspicion that you will list elements of socialism that you have confused as communist.

To say that capitalism cannot fail; it can only succeed - it's just too daft to take seriously.

"Well not by my definition. By my definition it's impossible for it to fail, it's simply a description of reality."

Then it can't have any successes either. You can't have it both ways. If you accept that then you accept my original point and we're basically arguing - and losing the will to live - for no reason

"You're trying to undefine each of these terms such that they don't have any "irreducible" meaning. Which makes discussion impossible and makes it irrelevant when you say the UK is a little communist. Because you've defined communist to be undefinable."

?? I was specifically careful to point out that definitions(or concepts) aren't useless, they're just always more complicated than their single-word form suggests. If you actually accepted this, all of your protestations would melt away and discussion wouldn't be difficult at all.

"Communism has people, for example. And the UK has people. Ergo, the UK is a little communist right? Let's ignore the fact that people predate communism and that "communism" is not a characteristic of "people" in the way that "people" can be a characteristic of "communism"."

Yes, political or economic concepts - again, like all concepts - have many constituent parts. Some are so implicit that it sounds silly to even enunciate them; like the existence of people. It seems trivial to point it out. But it's still a crucial part of the concept - you need people in order for Communism to work. You wouldn't tend to point it out because as you say all political systems require people. But it's still implicit to the concept.
And yes, as a result you could say that all political systems share that necessary component of a social system of humans in order for them to exist at all. So they have a partial, quite small similarity in that case. That only seems absurd if you still want to hang onto this idea of communism as an irreducible idea, with no component parts.

"Can you explain to me what elements of communism the UK has incorporated? I have a suspicion that you will list elements of socialism that you have confused as communist."

This is Nye Bevan's words(the brilliant man who pretty much created, or at least was the main figure in the creation of, the NHS):

"The Communist Manifesto stands in a class by itself in Socialist literature. No indictment of the social order ever written can rival it. The largeness of its conception, its profound philosophy and its sure grasp of history, its aphorisms and its satire, all these make it a classic of literature, while the note of passionate revolt which pulses through it, no less than its critical appraisement of the forces of revolt, make it for all rebels an inspiration and a weapon."

You've already told me you're going to dismiss any evidence I present to you as socialism, not communism. There's nothing I can do in the face of that; you win the game of 'because I say so' and I happily concede.

In general, there's nothing I can do if you're prepared to make a claim as manifestly daft as 'capitalism cannot fail'. I probably shouldn't even have quibbled at that point, it's so mental.

We did have a prime minister named Boris but he was only a little bit totalitarian.

Not sure whether to go with Britannica's definition based in part on the writings of Engels or that of some random internet person who seems to have arbitrarily confused it with the umbrella term socialism. Think I'll stick with the former, thanks. Were the two terms interchangeably synonymous I'd've thought one of them would be superfluous.

At no stage did I say countries can't feature a mix of different economies, so I'm not sure what I've supposed to have "admitted" to, though.

You should go with the random internet person, definitely.

"At no stage did I say countries can't feature a mix of different economies"

Then we're agreed. That's fine, I'll take that.

 

[Famine]

I'll just point out that in saying that capitalism cannot be why a country fails you've also - unintentionally - made it impossible for capitalism to be the reason a country succeeds too.

No that was fully intentional. Yes, capitalism is not the reason anything succeeds. I'm glad you understood what I meant.

With these on mind, the following is either forgetful or dishonest:

To say that capitalism cannot fail; it can only succeed - it's just too daft to take seriously.

@Danoff clearly pointed out that "capitalism" is a concept or system and neither fails nor succeeds. Economies operating under that system - to whatever extent - can do either, but it is not the reason for it.

I'm not sure why you'd subsequently present his argument as "capitalism cannot fail; it can only succeed".

 

[The Sprawl]

Hi there,

I just reread some of my previous posts to yourself and MikeyUK and...they were a bit combative. A bit of a two footed lunge from someone who's a complete newcomer to a forum - they went quite hard. So I could probably have presented them a bit better...maybe not called your ideas 'daft' quite so many times. A bit unkind of me. Same with the phrasing in some of the replies to Mikey; I'm learning how not to go in quite so hard every time.

I like arguing about big ideas, but I like it so much I sort of forget that the other person's real, and has feelings, and that calling someone's ideas stupid isn't that far off calling them stupid. Sorry about that. I stand by the arguments I made, but not so much the arrogance, if that's how it came across.

Cheers

 

[GBO Possum]

On a lighter note, there's an SNL perspective of the financials of the election, this being Easter and all...

 

[Danoff]

I like arguing about big ideas, but I like it so much I sort of forget that the other person's real, and has feelings, and that calling someone's ideas stupid isn't that far off calling them stupid. Sorry about that. I stand by the arguments I made, but not so much the arrogance, if that's how it came across.

Don't stand by either one.

You mischaracterized what I said directly. I said capitalism cannot fail or succeed, and you tried to turn that into something else to argue against. This is known as a the strawman fallacy. Then you turned around and reiterated your previously mentioned affirming the consequent fallacy.

Having people in your economic system does not make it communist even though communism requires people. You need to fully accept this and consider how its implications on the rest of your argument.

Final note, I did not say I wouldn't consider your examples. I said that I suspected that you'd list elements that confuse socialism for communism. That's not the bad faith you consider it to be. It was an attempt to signal you to potential pitfalls so that you can avoid them. I'm helping you see where this is going in order to short circuit a longer discussion. I'm trying to help you.

 

[The Sprawl]

Don't stand by either one.

You mischaracterized what I said directly. I said capitalism cannot fail or succeed, and you tried to turn that into something else to argue against. This is known as a the strawman fallacy. Then you turned around and reiterated your previously mentioned affirming the consequent fallacy.

Having people in your economic system does not make it communist even though communism requires people. You need to fully accept this and consider how its implications on the rest of your argument.

Final note, I did not say I wouldn't consider your examples. I said that I suspected that you'd list elements that confuse socialism for communism. That's not the bad faith you consider it to be. It was an attempt to signal you to potential pitfalls so that you can avoid them. I'm helping you see where this is going in order to short circuit a longer discussion. I'm trying to help you.

Okay - you have consistently refused to answer or engage with any of the examples or points I've made. You've avoided outright answering whether capitalism can be successful - because if you say 'yes' then that would contradict your claim that it cannot fail. You've avoided addressing the fact that all concepts are reducible, and that elements of a philosophy can be present in all kinds of countries(and that was the entire extent of my original point, nothing more.). You ignored the clear history of explicitly Marxist ideology on shaping the social system in my own country, complete with quote from the man who created the NHS. And I'm not a communist in any way shape or from, but it's crucial to consider the actual elements that went into shaping a country if you want to understand it properly.

Address any of the above points then I'd concede an inch in terms of argument. But if you're claiming capitalism cannot fail then that necessarily means it cannot succeed. And if you keep avoiding addressing that fact, then I'm going to start thinking you're avoiding it for a reason. I did say a few times that if we're agreed about that then there's no argument, but you keep pushing so I have no option but to just guess what your viewpoint is on this. It's like you don't want to commit to any of the catch 22 situations you keep placing yourself in. I'd really like you to address some of the points I made or else this is genuinely pointless. I maintain that I should've been more conciliatory when presenting my ideas as a nooby noob from distant shores, but you've also been patronising and consistenty evasive. You really just haven't engaged with any of my points. Now you're telling me I'm misprepresenting you - I promise you it's not intentional; you just refuse to commit to any of the logical concomitants of your positions. If you're going to make a claim as big as 'capitalism cannot fail' then I'd like to hear whether you think you can have your cake and eat it too, ie. whether it can succeed nevertheless. After asking you two or three times I can only assume you're being evasive by this point.

 

[Famine]

But if you're claiming capitalism cannot fail then that necessarily means it cannot succeed. And if you keep avoiding addressing that fact, then I'm going to start thinking you're avoiding it for a reason.

What's the reason for you ignoring the fact it was directly addressed?

No that was fully intentional. Yes, capitalism is not the reason anything succeeds. I'm glad you understood what I meant.

 

[Danoff]

Okay - you have consistently refused to answer or engage with any of the examples or points I've made. You've avoided outright answering whether capitalism can be successful

I have said it twice already. Here is a third. No, it cannot be successful or fail. It just is, a description of reality of unrestricted economic activity when human rights are protected. I do understand that you don't like this definition, but you keep coming back to this and it's weird. That's three times now.

You've avoided addressing the fact that all concepts are reducible, and that elements of a philosophy can be present in all kinds of countries(and that was the entire extent of my original point, nothing more.).

I've addressed this head on multiple times with the affirming the consequent fallacy that it represents. For some reason you won't touch that one.

You ignored the clear history of explicitly Marxist ideology on shaping the social system in my own country, complete with quote from the man who created the NHS.

You quoted someone saying he thought it was profound. I'm not sure how that answers my request for what you think is communist in the UK government.

And I'm not a communist in any way shape or from, but it's crucial to consider the actual elements that went into shaping a country if you want to understand it properly.

Go ahead and point them out.

 

[The Sprawl]

I have said it twice already. Here is a third. No, it cannot be successful or fail. It just is, a description of reality of unrestricted economic activity when human rights are protected. I do understand that you don't like this definition, but you keep coming back to this and it's weird. That's three times now.


I've addressed this head on multiple times with the affirming the consequent fallacy that it represents. For some reason you won't touch that one.

You quoted someone saying he thought it was profound. I'm not sure how that answers my request for what you think is communist in the UK government.

Go ahead and point them out.

I've pointed out the origin of the NHS, which was heavily influenced by Marxist philosophy and was spearheaded by a man with explicitly communist beliefs. I've no idea how you define Communism; your definition of capitalism is precisely the kind of overly vague definition of which you accuse me. You smuggle in the idea of human rights protections for arbitrary reasons. I don't know how that managed to find its way into it.

This really is the crux of the disagreement: you believe that there is nothing reducible about a definition. Or maybe just some definitions; I'm not sure. To you they really are completely comprised of one or two basic ideas and nothing else.

By your logic about the impossibility of any kind of leeway in a definition ... then your definition of capitalism simply doesn't exist in the real world. It has no real world instantiations, because there just isn't genuinely "unrestricted economic activity" anywhere. Such a system doesn't exist anywhere on earth. All economies are restricted to some extent or another. The most you'll find is a 'partially capitalist' country. Which is my original point about ideas. You'll only ever find partial examples of any specific philosophy/ideology/descriptive system of any kind. I keep saying this isn't controverial because it's so utterly banal to keep repeating it.

I would recommend 'thinking fast and slow' by danny kahneman for a breakdown of all the ways that eocnomic systems and our psychological makeup contain moral contradictions that necessarily cause enormous pain and inequality, and often just end up with the country collapsing in on itself. You can look at the hyperinflationary eras in certain famous countries, brought about by, say, demand-pull inflation. These were failures of the structure of capitalism, just as much as failures of communism are failures of the structure of communism.
If you still want to claim that any of the economic screw-ups that led to the collapse of capitalist economies simply cannot have anything to do with capitalism itself then you're arguing with the majority of economists.

Not sure how much there is to say beyond this.

 

[UKMikey]

I've pointed out the origin of the NHS, which was heavily influenced by Marxist philosophy and was spearheaded by a man with explicitly communist beliefs.

Attlee was explicitly anti-Communist according to these sources.

Anti-communism in Britain during the early Cold War: A Very British Witch Hunt | Historical Transactions

blog.royalhistsoc.org

Clement Attlee: Cold War records reveal new side to popular prime minister

He is revered for founding the welfare state, but the post-war leader also left a lasting legacy in British intelligence.

theconversation.com

 

[The Sprawl]

Attlee was explicitly anti-Communist according to these scholars.

Anti-communism in Britain during the early Cold War: A Very British Witch Hunt | Historical Transactions

blog.royalhistsoc.org

Clement Attlee: Cold War records reveal new side to popular prime minister

He is revered for founding the welfare state, but the post-war leader also left a lasting legacy in British intelligence.

theconversation.com

...Ok?

 

[Famine]

I've pointed out the origin of the NHS, which was heavily influenced by Marxist philosophy and was spearheaded by a man with explicitly communist beliefs.

Which wasn't the question. The question was what aspects of communism are present in British society:

Can you explain to me what elements of communism the UK has incorporated? I have a suspicion that you will list elements of socialism that you have confused as communist.

The NHS is indeed a socialist endeavour, regardless of Aneurin Bevan's personal leanings to communism. As noted above, the PM at the time of NHS's creation - Clement Attlee - was anti-communism (like, militarily so), so it should seem strange that he allowed his health minister to create a communist enterprise right beneath his nose and should lead you to question the premise that it is.


Interestingly, the quote you provided for Bevan also shows recognition that socialism is not communism, but communism is an extension of socialism. Which is something perhaps worth heeding in respect to this discussion.

 

[Danoff]

I've pointed out the origin of the NHS, which was heavily influenced by Marxist philosophy and was spearheaded by a man with explicitly communist beliefs.

The NHS is not communist on its face. If you'd like to point out what is communist about it, please do so. Someone being involved saying that they think Marx was cool is not good enough.

I've no idea how you define Communism; your definition of capitalism is precisely the kind of overly vague definition of which you accuse me. You smuggle in the idea of human rights protections for arbitrary reasons.

Uh... arbitrary? No. I mention human rights because it enables capitalism to exist. Because my explanation of capitalism is NOT vague.

This really is the crux of the disagreement: you believe that there is nothing reducible about a definition. Or maybe just some definitions; I'm not sure. To you they really are completely comprised of one or two basic ideas and nothing else.

No. I'm saying that if you want to call something communist, you need to base that on something that is fundamentally communist. I even gave the example "people" as a characteristic which is shared by both but not fundamentally communism.

By your logic about the impossibility of any kind of leeway in a definition ... then your definition of capitalism simply doesn't exist in the real world. It has no real world instantiations, because there just isn't genuinely "unrestricted economic activity" anywhere. Such a system doesn't exist anywhere on earth. All economies are restricted to some extent or another.

This is another strawman. I explained, in detail, that capitalism exists within the slack of the system, including within communism. I don't know who you're arguing against here, but it isn't me.

I would recommend 'thinking fast and slow' by danny kahneman for a breakdown of all the ways that eocnomic systems and our psychological makeup contain moral contradictions that necessarily cause enormous pain and inequality, and often just end up with the country collapsing in on itself.

This seems unrelated to our discussion.

You can look at the hyperinflationary eras in certain famous countries, brought about by, say, demand-pull inflation. These were failures of the structure of capitalism, just as much as failures of communism are failures of the structure of communism.

Demand-pull inflation cannot by itself cause hyperinflation. It's just supply and demand. And if you're defining capitalism as light socialism again, I can tell you that lots of light socialist countries have managed to resist hyperinflation, so I do not accept hyperinflation as an inherent failing of light socialism. If you're trying to work from my definition of capitalism, it is a nonsensical statement.

If you still want to claim that any of the economic screw-ups that led to the collapse of capitalist economies simply cannot have anything to do with capitalism itself then you're arguing with the majority of economists.

Not sure how much there is to say beyond this.

Are you referring to light socialism? I guess you could say that it's a failure of the protections created in those particular societies, you should probably give an example of an errant policy or country to make this case. If you're trying to use my definition of capitalism, it is once again a nonsensical statement.

 

[The Sprawl]

Which wasn't the question. The question was what aspects of communism are present in British society:

The NHS is indeed a socialist endeavour, regardless of Aneurin Bevan's personal leanings to communism. As noted above, the PM at the time of NHS's creation - Clement Attlee - was anti-communism, so it should seem strange that he allowed his health minister to create a communist enterprise right beneath his nose and should lead you to question the premise that it is.


Interestingly, the quote you provided for Bevan also shows recognition that socialism is not communism, but communism is an extension of socialism. Which is something perhaps worth heeding in respect to this discussion.

I'll tell you what; instead of dealing with two separate angles that repeatedly and lazily dispute the basic facts about the history of the foundation of the Labour Party and the central figures involved in it, and with how ideas are formed, how about instead you explain to me how an entire academic discipline devoted to reconciling the failures of capitalism is wrong.

If not, I'm really done for the foreseeable, but thanks.

 

[Danoff]

I'll tell you what; instead of dealing with two separate angles that repeatedly and lazily dispute the basic facts about the history of the foundation of the Labour Party and the central figures involved in it, and with how ideas are formed, how about instead you explain to me how an entire academic discipline devoted to reconciling the failures of capitalism is wrong.

Maybe we should get back to your original point, where you claimed that countries which aren't capitalist are examples of capitalist failures, and where you claimed that the UK is communist without a single example of a communist policy.

You made a claim, you bear the burden of backing it up.

 

[Famine]

If not, I'm really done for the foreseeable, but thanks.

That's probably for the best, as you're demanding I defend a point I didn't make now, in addition to your repeated pretences that a point directly addressing your question wasn't made while simultaneously not answering questions asked of you.

To reiterate, socialism isn't communism. However communism is socialism with extra steps.


Incidentally, Bevan was four when the Labour Party was founded.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

The rapist is YOUR guy.

What about Biden and the whole kid sniffing business? Glass houses, and all that.

 

[UKMikey]

What about Biden and the whole kid sniffing business? Glass houses, and all that.

Inappropriate behaviour? Sure. Using it as an excuse to defend a rapist? I think I'd have to draw the line at that.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

Inappropriate behaviour? Sure. Using it as an excuse to defend a rapist? I think I'd have to draw the line at that.

Rapist or fiddy kiddler? Interesting choice. Glad I’m not American

 

[Famine]

Rapist or fiddy kiddler? Interesting choice. Glad I’m not American

With Trump they get both...

 

[UKMikey]

Rapist or fiddy kiddler? Interesting choice. Glad I’m not American

Illegal or not illegal. It's not a choice at all.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

Illegal or not illegal. It's not a choice at all.

I’m pretty sure if you or I couldn’t go anywhere near a child without getting all handsy with them it’d be illegal.

 

[UKMikey]

I’m pretty sure if you or I couldn’t go anywhere near a child without getting all handsy with them it’d be illegal.

Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration. Are you saying that Biden is a child molester and is only being let off because he's president? That's quite the accusation.

 

[Clinton Ducks]

Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration. Are you saying that Biden is a child molester and is only being let off because he's president? That's quite the accusation.

There’s more evidence of Biden being a child predator than there is of Trump being a rapist

 

[UKMikey]

There’s more evidence of Biden being a child predator than there is of Trump being a rapist

Aside from the court verdicts. However Biden acts in public, it's not as creepy as your using it as an excuse to shut down accusations against someone who's actually been found guilty of predation.