He responds: >What else is there about socialism other than someone's word i.e. "faith?" Can I identify socialism empirically, measure or describe its properties in empirical terms, and show in a reasonably objective fashion what it is and what it is not? Until you show how to do this, I am afraid that my word or faith about socialism is as good as anyone else's. <
let's see... Someone plants some corn. Before it can be harvested, someone else comes along and kills the crop and uproots all the corn stalk, burning them with kerosene. Because the crop wasn't allowed to be harvested, it's merely a matter of faith. So WS joins in and help the saboteur with words: there was no point in planting the crop in the first place! Give up now! it is better to die on your knees than to die on your feet!
one thing's that's crucial here is that socialism is not simply an end-result, an ideal. It's also a movement. I agree with old Ed Bernstein about the importance of the movement. The bigger and deeper the grassroots movement (and the more organized in a democratic way), the more that social-democratic reforms will be won. Further, the bigger and deeper the movement, the less likely that some clique of creeps will be able to take over the state when and if a revolution happens. In the end, the movement is not only a means but an end in itself, with means and ends being united.
on the importance of the movement, I mentioned the IWW. But WS ignored that. Since I don't read all of WS's missives, I don't know if ignoring concrete cases that go against his intellectual grain is his normal _modus operandi_ or not. Maybe he doesn't know enough about US history. Fot those who don't know, it's an old anarchosocialist labor movement with mass membership (that has shrunk to a few hundred or thousand).
And according to WS, any discussion of an abstraction not seen empirically is a matter of faith? Well, that's not my meaning of "faith." Faith is about something that can _never_ be seen empirically (either in terms of its existence or its results) in a way that would satisfy the vast majority of scientifically-minded (skeptical) individuals. Most people on this list would see god as a matter of faith. But the laws of physics, which we also can't see, are not a matter of faith because they have empirical manifestations. (Socialism has had all sorts of empirical manifestations, BTW, as seen in lots of social movements and incomplete versions of socialism.)
For WS, it seems, it is part of his faith that socialism can never be seen empirically, either in terms of its existence or its results. Since by definition it's a matter of faith, other people who are discussing it are also engaged in faith. Somehow this is stretched to say that nobody is allowed to defend it except on WS's own terms.
WS's faith, as far as I can tell, that "classless society is impossible in modern society." Not only does this assertion motivate his entire argument, but it blinds him from giving attention to what other people are writing, as seen below.
WS, cont.> As to the rest of your posting - I made a New Year's resolution not to react to snide ad-hominems or insinuations posted to internet discussion lists, so I'll pass. <
Ad hominems? According to the web, an "ad hominem" argument is "A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute."
Here's the whole message that WS is responding to. Let's see how many times I attack him personally rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute. My comments are in brackets.
Me:
> > Disneyworld is the ideal _statist_ society. It's not
> > socialism. It's a hierarchical planned economy, akin to that
> > of ancient Egypt. It deals with the left-liberal or
> WS: You did not get the irony, did you?
[is this an _ad hominem_ attack?? am I being accused of irony-impairment?]
e-mail tends to strip away irony and similar undertones. Besides, your usual _ex cathedra_ tone of lecturing LOBsters seems the opposite of irony. So there's no reason to expect irony from you. You do not seem to be a humorous fellow at all. In fact, I really don't believe you were being ironic, since your misunderstanding of socialism continues below.
[I attacked his tone, not him. I don't think he would deny that he pontificates. I do so too, sometimes.
[The fact that he doesn't seem humorous is hardly a criticism, since the world we live is predominantly grim and non-humorous. Whether or not he misunderstands socialism depends on what's seen below.]
> What I wanted to say by the
> metaphor of Disneyland as socialism that there is such a thing as socialism
> for fools
was it Engels who called anti-semitism the "socialism of fools"? But I don't think anybody on this list sees Disneyland as being in any way "socialist," except perhaps in the Stalinist meaning of the word.
[WS says his use of D'world was ironic. Thus, it's likely that absolutely no-one on the list sees it as "socialist." So it's likely, as I "insinuated," that WS is misjudging his audience. That is, he's writing in a way that will turn people off and won't convince anyone. This assumes, of course, that he wants to convince people.]
>... Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit,
> but I do get that impression each time people start bashing "capitalism" for
> all social and personal woes they experience. By that logic, the
> disappearance of capitalism into its opposite - socialism I presume - all
> these woes will disappear, the history will end, and we all be living
> happily thereafter.
I don't care what "people" think. When someone responds to _my_ words, I interpret it as a response to _me_, even if it is done in a way (as it should be) to talk to the list as a whole.
[this is hardly _ad hominem_. It's more a matter of "talk to me, not some abstract people." Frankly, I get very tired of anti-socialist types arguing against abstract "leftists" or abstract "socialists" rather than dealing with the individual. If there is any ire in my statements above, it's because of this fatigue.]
> The way I see it, socialism will not eradicate any of these problems, not
> even replace them with better ones, as Doug quoted. People will still be
> hating and killing each other for pretty much the same reasons they are
> doing it know: power, sex, status, envy or fear.
that's your faith.
[this is simply a response on my part to the continuation of his _ex cathedra_ tone. WS makes assertions and seems to hope that everyone will accept them, without any logic or empirical evidence.
[I know that in the economic forecasting biz, it is insufficient to simply extrapolate from the present to the future. To simply assert that people in the future will be just like the (perceived) people in the present doesn't wash.]
> If socialism eradicates
> the importance of money in defining social status, other means of defining
> it will be found - look, sex appeal, place of residence, popularity, the
> right accent, hair color - the possibilities are endless.
capitalism isn't about money "as defining social status." It's about giving _power_ to those with sufficient money. It's the power to order people about, to alienate their labor, and to receive surplus-value (something for nothing, as viewed at the societal level) and then to accumulate power.
[Here, I responded to the fact that WS was shifting the argument away from class and capitalism to talk about a different topic. (I don't know if that's his hobby horse or not.) Luckily, he did it without stooping to _ad hominem_ argumentation.]
> If socialism
> eradicates the drudgery of work, the drudgery of idleness will ensue, at
> least for most.
the Marxian idea of eradicating the "drudgery of work" is that work and play will be merged. It's not that work will be abolished.
[again, I'm trying to steer the discussion back to the topic at hand, trying to explain the socialist ideal. But I guess he's not interested. Oh well. Maybe some other reader gained from it. That's why I try to write in a way that doesn't simply respond to the person, but instead could inform or at least amuse other readers.]
> If socialism eliminates marketing-centered mindless
> entertainment, then human-interest or fart-joke or kitschy-romance centered
> mindless entertainment will emerge.
My impression is that "human-interest or fart-joke or kitschy-romance centered mindless entertainment" already dominates. You must not watch TV at all.
[the assertion that WS doesn't watch TV might be interpreted as an _ad hominem_ compliment.]
In any event, socialism promotes _education_ in the old-fashioned "liberal arts" model. If people want kitch after understanding da Vinci, that's fine by me. I don't want elitist snobs imposing their "high culture" on the world. My attitude is that as far as culture goes, "let a thousand flowers bloom."
[again, I'm trying to steer the conversation back to that of socialism, away from the elitist cultural criticism. Sure, I am very tired of fart jokes too. But who am I to impose my tastes on others?
[the implication that WS might be a cultural elitist may be interpreted as an _ad hominem_ attack. But I don't know if it applies, so I gave WS a chance to deny it -- by not associating cultural elitism with his name. He didn't take the opportunity.]
> What socialism will, imho, do is change the nature of human responses to
> contingencies of everyday life - from more individualist it-is-your-problem-
> approach embedded in the US-style capitalism, into more collectivistic
> let's-pool-risks-and-resources-for-greater-public-good approach that trumps
> individual interests. In other words, more housing coops, less individually
> owned homes, more public transit, fewer private cars, more public ownership
> of means of production and credit institution, less private profits and
> usury, more risk pooling and socialization of benefits, less privatization
> of benefits and socialization of costs, more public goods delivered, from
> health care to insurance to old age support to education to transportation,
> less fabulous fortunes. The nature of political discourse will also change
> form the current popularity-contest circus, to more rational discussion of
> impending decisions in citizens committees and planning commissions.
that's Scandinavian or Austrian (etc.) social democracy. That's fine by me, though the only way you get social democracy is by fighting for something better, i.e., socialism.
[how is this an _ad hominem_ attack???]
> The rest, however, will remain the same.
that's your faith.
[again, it's a response to the fact that WS simply makes assertions and doesn't try to back them up in any way.]
> People will still abuse, control
> or cheat on their mates or spouses, they will still berate unpopular or low
> status groups, they will still try to avoid work and responsibility or do
> whatever wicked or stupid things they can get away with, they will still be
> sponging off emotional (if not material, as their material needs will be
> fully met) support of others, they will still derive sadistic satisfaction
> from misfortunes of others, and they still be looking for scapegoats to
> blame for their own laziness, stupidity, and everything that is wrong in
> their lives.
you shouldn't assume that all people are like yourself. This is the standard elitist fallacy, applying self-analysis to make assertions about "human nature."
[now this is an _ad hominem_! finally! But it's for a reason. All these folks who go on and on about how "human nature" is totally corrupt or horrible or whatever (and can never be improved) seem to avoid the implication that if "human nature" is so bad, they themselves must be bad too. Unless they are Vulcans or Androids.
[WS, if you are to make assertions about the unchangeability of "human nature," please back them up with some sort of logic or empirical argument.]
Jerry: <<<You are bag full of prejudices and false attributions of what you think other people think and believe!>>>
WS: Moi? Are you sure you did not confuse my posting with that of Jim Devine? ;)
[now here's a real _ad hominem_, softened with a smilie. I don't make false attributions of what WS thinks, since I don't know what happens behind his nihilistic prose. I try to infer what he thinks, but I always try to give him a chance to present an argument in reponse or to deny that he's an elitist or whatever.
[as for prejudices, please tell me what you think my prejudices are, WS. ] -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles