Democratic Socialism in Practice - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#901475
This this a rather unknown topic for me because America has never seen democratic socialists in power.

What kind of things to democratic socialists do once they have a majority? What do they propose? I'd imagine a lot of it would mirror social democrat policies, but the real question is what to they try to implement in addition to all that in order to move towards socialism?
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#901589
They wouldn't want to move towards socialism. What the hell is socialism? Paradise on earth? Government-run economy? No, Social democrats have their feet firmly on the ground.

They would do things like:
* Higher taxation (balanced budgets?)
* Higher investment in education
* More public transportation
* Universal healthcare
* Free/low cost tertiary education
* Tougher labor regulations, smaller working week, higher minimum wage, more paid vacations etc. (inflationlicious?)
* Higher tariffs (?... historically people championing "free markets" actually have tended to distort it in favor of wealthy countries and people)
By Spartakusbund
#902090
Depends, the SPUSA has become quite a melting pot of leftists. There IS a revolutionary tendancy within the SPUSA, (Direct Action tendancy) and a reformist wing as well.
User avatar
By Adrien
#902176
Direct Action is quite an unfortunate name for a political group, but then again maybe it only is to European ears.

Mik wrote:This this a rather unknown topic for me because America has never seen democratic socialists in power.


I'd have to say that it is quite an unknown topic for a lot of people; only a few nations have had democratic socialists in power instead of social-democrats, and I'm still studying Chile's example in its economic aspect so personnally I cannot answer about them. That having been said, looking back on History allows us to find, as recently as the immediate post-WWII era, a number of countries that enjoyed the leadership of truly radical forms of social-democracy, I think of France, Italy, maybe Great Britain.

but the real question is what to they try to implement in addition to all that in order to move towards socialism?


I think the keyword is not "more" but "better". In general, the social-democrats we live with today have a very superficial approach: their action is just about changing the way money is dispatched in the State. Look, I think, to the economic differences that might exist between Democrats and Republicans in the US. The democratic socialists on this forum, I dare speak on their behalf, advocate deep changes, not on the surface of the system, but on the way it functions. It's about reorganizing where and how the State directly intervenes to stimulate a particular kind of growth that benefits the people as citizens and workers. I refer you to the "virtuous circle" graphic, I think it's one of the solutions, which you can see it differ greatly from what a rightist, pro-free market group would implement.

DumbTeen wrote:They would do things like:
* Higher taxation (balanced budgets?)
* Higher investment in education
* More public transportation
* Universal healthcare
* Free/low cost tertiary education
* Tougher labor regulations, smaller working week, higher minimum wage, more paid vacations etc. (inflationlicious?)
* Higher tariffs (?... historically people championing "free markets" actually have tended to distort it in favor of wealthy countries and people)


These measures you mention, and which are typical of modern social-democracy's political platforms, remain precisely superficial. If you look at them, they can all be implemented just by rewriting the annual budget of the State (and by forgetting in doing so that the State's out of money, but that's another problem).

To bring about long-term change, to bring about key changes, the State has to do more: ie it has to have a true economic policy, I'd even say it has to bring back something that can seem outdated, the "political economy", with an economy that works in a precise way to bring precise results (I once again refer you to the virtuous circle depicted in the sticky thread, even it will soon sound pretentious for me to recommend it so much, eh). But of course these things you mentioned have to be there too, they're like a necessary lot.
User avatar
By Mikolaj
#902361
Oh shit, I forgot about Europe's whole "Parliament" thing, where you have to form coalitions. I guess the phrase of democratic socialists "taking power" doesn't really make sense then.

How would democratic socialists push real socialist initiatives in such a system where non-majorities, compromise, and interests water down proposals? It's very rare for one party to make a rubber-stamp government.

Still, you say they have experienced radical social democracy, but not democratic socialism? Does that make democratic socialism kind of "theoretical" again as socialism in general?
User avatar
By Adrien
#902372
Oh shit, I forgot about Europe's whole "Parliament" thing, where you have to form coalitions. I guess the idea of democratic socialists "taking power" doesn't really make sense then.


We do not *have* to form coallitions. It's just that since we have more than two parties in the US, when one party after a given election does not have a clear majority in the Assembly it has to build an alliance with other parties. This is not a brake to Democratic Socialism, it is a brake to every single political faction out there, and it is not a fatality: a good campaign, a good election, etc. and even a DS party can have a clear and stable majority.

And, as a counter-example, remember that the Unidad Popular in Chile was a DS alliance that gathered many parties in order to govern.

How would democratic socialists push real socialist initiatives in such a system?


By gaining a stable enough parliamentary majority, and by of course remembering that they also need to build local DS powers at the scale of cities, districts, regions. And particularly in regions, which are often in direct contact with another political body of our continent: the European Union.

Still, you say they have experienced radical social democracy, but not democratic socialism? Does that make democratic socialism kind of "theoretical" again as socialism in general?


I just used the term "radical social-democracy" because at that time democratic socialism/marxism and social-democracy were one and the same. It's only now that we need to separate them again to distinguish the weak social-democracy and a more daring political movement, heritage of the great political trends of the first half of the XXth century.

Just because it's in the past, I don't think it would be very accurate to label such experiments (France, Italy, etc.) as experiments of democratic socialism (even if we agree that the similarities are numerous). On the other hand, Chile used the term of "democratic socialism" and can be called like that without hesitation. It's just, as usual, a matter of accuracy in the wording.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#902420
These measures you mention, and which are typical of modern social-democracy's political platforms, remain precisely superficial. If you look at them, they can all be implemented just by rewriting the annual budget of the State (and by forgetting in doing so that the State's out of money, but that's another problem).

To bring about long-term change, to bring about key changes, the State has to do more: ie it has to have a true economic policy, I'd even say it has to bring back something that can seem outdated, the "political economy", with an economy that works in a precise way to bring precise results (I once again refer you to the virtuous circle depicted in the sticky thread, even it will soon sound pretentious for me to recommend it so much, eh). But of course these things you mentioned have to be there too, they're like a necessary lot.

You're probably right, I was thinking of what I guess would be called social democracy (rather than evolutionary socialism).

Social democrats would implement those "superficial" policies in America, probably leading to some inflation, but drastically curbing the level of poverty.

Evolutionary socialism I think, is pretty bankrupt, socialist economic thought is so fuzzy that any attempt to create or move toward so-called "socialism" would just clumsy bumbling and stabs in the dark. (more often than not, economically damaging for EVERYBODY too, not unlike Allende's stint in Chile or Mitterrand's first two years)
User avatar
By Adrien
#902429
Social democrats would implement those "superficial" policies in America, probably leading to some inflation, but drastically curbing the level of poverty.


Certainly, in USA you're bound to start with this kind of measures. It makes me think that I had gathered that Clinton had managed to accumulate a significant amount of money in the State's treasury, an amount George Bush used for tax cuts and war and turned into a huge deficit.

One can only imagine the social potential of such a big excedent. Elevating the lowest "layer" of society would have been a plus for the USA.

Evolutionary socialism I think, is pretty bankrupt


It depends on how you plan to finance it, because it does need a lot of financing, as opposed to the easy-to-apply liberal model that is precisely a lack of financing.
#14724351
@ all
Ombrageux wrote:Evolutionary socialism I think, is pretty bankrupt, socialist economic thought is so fuzzy that any attempt to create or move toward so-called "socialism" would just clumsy bumbling and stabs in the dark. (more often than not, economically damaging for EVERYBODY too, not unlike Allende's stint in Chile or Mitterrand's first two years)
A stubborn porcupine: heredity & nationhood. Meditate, brother!

Recently I opened a thread about the same theme, but this one approaches the question from a different perspective. My horizon with regard to the realization of socialist institutions is limited to Western Europe. Imho democratic socialism (democratic, that is, as opposed to Leninism) is a European phenomenon anyway. Note that until recently (several decades ago) the Second Socialist International was completely European.

Perhaps the socialist movement begins in England, with Robert Owen, and then much later the Fabian Society. After WWII the Attlee government has nationalized many economic activities. However, it soon lost the support of the people. Probably the most powerful socialist movement is German, with Lassalle and Marx as its founders. After WWI, in the twenties of the last century, the SPD participated in several coalitions, and managed to found a system of workers councils. Socialism has supported systems of workers councils since the rise of the trade unions, in order to involve them in the management of the economy. In Russia they turned into a great success. In Germany, however, it never really developed into a vivid and active system. After WWII the SPD abandoned socialism, and in the Godesberger Program advocated a social liberalism.

Noteworthy is also after WWII the system in the Netherlands, which was founded by a socialist-catholic coalition. The Dutch catholics were enthusiast about the corporatist system (following the encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno). The socialists decided to comply with the catholic idea, and added socialist features. The most noteworthy aspect of the Dutch experiment is that during several decades the wage level (and to a lesser extent, also the price level) was planned by a central council. In this way a full employment could be maintained. Since both catholics and socialists supported this policy, there was a fairly broad social consensus and support. The economist Tinbergen was its most authoritative ideologist. Unfortunately, in the end the attempt failed. Soon a black market for labour emerged. For in a situation of full employment there is a permanent upward pressure on the wages, which is uncontrolable.

I agree that the most sophisticated attempt to build a socialist society has been done by the Mitterrand government, starting in 1981. Note that the PSF had little choice, since she needed the support of the Leninist PCF in order to gain the democratic majority. This socialist experiment already stagnated after only two years, and obviously was not a success. Today only a few elements have survived, such as the 35 hour working-week. However, in order to answer the question of this thread ("What kind of things to democratic socialists do once they have a majority?") it is probably still relevant to summarize the ideas of Mitterrand himself.

Mitterrand calls himself a socialist, not a social democrat, because he reproaches the latter to be reformists. They want to regulate the markets, but that will not change the social relations. A shift in power is required. Mitterrand adheres to the necessity of the class struggle, albeit with democratic means. The workers must realize that they are exploited. Mitterrand even promises some kind of workers self-management, in order to introduce democracy in the private sector. Apparently he has in mind a hierarchy of workers councils. Since WWII France had always applied central planning. Mitterrand wants to intensify this effort. Moreover he wants to nationalize large parts of the private economy, notably big business, for political reasons. The state must control capital, and thus the investments. Mitterrand distrusts the civil society. The unemployment is reduced by means of a shorter working-week. Agriculture must become more collective.

In summary, Mitterrand promotes a traditional socialist policy. This is weird, because the world had already been hit by the oil crises. They had shown that the economy has become global, so that the state can no longer control it. For me, rooted in the German social democracy, it remains difficult to understand why the PSF keeps clinging to policies, which time after time prove to be inefficient and defective.
Mikolaj wrote:How would democratic socialists push real socialist initiatives in such a system where non-majorities, compromise, and interests water down proposals?

The funny thing about the French case is that probably Mitterrand and his PSF had to propose more extreme policies than their own in order to compete and coalesce with the Leninist PCF.
Adrien wrote:In general, the social-democrats we live with today have a very superficial approach: their action is just about changing the way money is dispatched in the State. Look, I think, to the economic differences that might exist between Democrats and Republicans in the US. The democratic socialists on this forum, I dare speak on their behalf, advocate deep changes, not on the surface of the system, but on the way it functions. It's about reorganizing where and how the State directly intervenes to stimulate a particular kind of growth that benefits the people as citizens and workers.

Mitterrand could have said this - although actually the advancements between the social democrats and the American Democrats started only in the last decade of the twentieth century, with the policy of the New radical centre (Clinton, Blair, Schroeder). Note also that for a long time the Democrats were rooted in the conservative South. Social democracy is a political movement, and thus dynamic, albeit with a tradition. On the other hand, socialism is an ideology, which rejects private (individual) property. For this reason both V.I. Uljanov and G. Schroeder can call themselves social democrats.
#14724748
@ TheRedBaron
TheRedBaron wrote: After WWII the SPD abandoned socialism, and in the Godesberger Program advocated a social liberalism.

It depends on how you define liberalism. The German variety is called ordoliberalism, which was developed by the economist Walter Eucken. It accepts a certain degree of state intervention, and rejects oligopolies. In 1946 the SPD wanted to nationalize all mining activities, because they are of a strategic importance. They provide the raw materials for the steel industry and for the energy production. It is desirable that they produce according to a central plan. Moreover these branches are oligopolies. In fact this restricted demand for nationalization can already be found in the Goerlitz Program of 1921, which is still marxist. The SPD began to realize that the democratic majority rejects the nationalization of the whole economy, so that she had to compromise. The Godesberger Program in 1959 still retains the demand to nationalize the energy sector. Eventually a significant system of workers co-management was realized within the energy sector, since the labour unions were represented on an equal footing in the board of directors. This model of workers participation is unique for Europe. And in the seventies of the last century chancellor Helmut Schmidt still maintained the support for the German coal industry, even though she suffered from heavy losses. It is unfair to call such policies liberalism.
#14725032
@ Stegerwald
Stegerwald wrote:It is unfair to call such policies liberalism.

Ombrageux suggested that the question of Mikolaj "What kind of things to democratic socialists do once they have a majority?" can not be answered. He is probably right. Socialism lost much of its credibility when after WWI everywhere in Europe the universal suffrage was realized, and subsequently the people did not give a majority to the socialists. This electoral result undermines the whole idea of a proletarian class conscience. The majority of the workers does not want a socialization of the means of production. When you read the articles of the socialist leaders in this period, the disappointment and confusion are indeed striking. It dawned on them that the proletarian revolution would not come. Perhaps at that moment it would have been wise for them to convert to liberalism. The problem was indeed that the European socialists did not dispose of a political model for the state, that could serve as an alternative for capitalism. After the introduction of democracy many writers stated, just like Mikolaj, that the socialists must develop their own theory about the constitution and the administration. At the time several suggestions have been done, which are based on a hierarchy of workers councils. An obvious problem is that the workers simply lack the skills and knowledge to contribute to the rule of the state. The workers can not take over the management of production and of public corporations. It was assumed or hoped that the unions could educate and form the workers for administrative functions, but this was an illusion. None of the experiments with workers councils produced convincing and lasting results. Besides, the workers councils can not replace the parliamentary system (just look at the Soviet Union). And it is just not a good idea to separate the economical and the political administration.
Stegerwald wrote:The Godesberger Program in 1959 still retains the demand to nationalize the energy sector. Eventually a significant system of workers co-management was realized within the energy sector, since the labour unions were represented on an equal footing in the board of directors. This model of workers participation is unique for Europe. And in the seventies of the last century chancellor Helmut Schmidt still maintained the support for the German coal industry, even though she suffered from heavy losses.

At the time the policy of the SPD was somewhat ambivalent. When the Godesberger Program was published, many leaders within the party had already renounced the idea of nationalizations. However, the German coal mines were not competitive on the world markets, and needed the support of the state. So in the end the losses of the coal industry were socialized. This is evidently not the original socialist idea, which advocates the socialization of the profits. By the way, the French nationalizations by Mitterrand were also partly an attempt to reorganize ailing branches. Nonetheless, the different policies of England and Germany in the seventies with respect to coal mining do show that politics matters. On the one hand, the Conservatives decided to close the ailing mines. On the other hand, the SPD decided to keep them. Schmidt argued that probably the oil prices would continue to rise, so that the German coal could again become more competitive. And he predicted technological progress, that could make coal liquid, and thus more attractive. Moreover, he believed that Germany should reduce her dependency with respect to the global energy markets. Neither of these arguments is truly convincing. It may well be that in secret the SPD feared the confrontation with the labour unions over the jobs of the miners, such as in England. The SPD needed the support of the unions for electoral reasons. But this is an opportunist argument, not an ideological one.
#14725604
@ TheRedBaron
TheRedBaron wrote:the people did not give a majority to the socialists. This electoral result undermines the whole idea of a proletarian class conscience.

The socialist ideology is flawed. The notion that the society of that time was divided in classes is already controversial. But the whole idea of the class struggle is definitely a mistake. For she demands the victory of the proletariat and the elimination of other vital groups. This leads to a dictature, accompanied by human suffering and suppression. Solid policies must be based on justice. And many demands of the socialists were so extreme, that they are not justified. Also some of their means are dubious. It took decades to establish revisionism, and abolish the revolution, and even then there remained a revolutionary sentiment within the socialist movement.
TheRedBaron wrote:It was assumed or hoped that the unions could educate and form the workers for administrative functions, but this was an illusion.

The circumstances were unfavourable. During the first decades of their existence the unions were still poor. The workers did not yet see their potential, and were not willing to pay high subscriptions. There was not yet the notion, that a union requires salaried personnel. So the leaders were simple workers, whose sole education was (at most) the primary school. Due to their limited experience their human skills were scanty. Of course later the unions became quite wealthy, but then there was already a strong tradition that the leaders themselves need to be former workers. Unions became a career path for motivated workers. Even after WWII most of the union leaders had still only completed primary school. Since adult schools did not yet exist, the unions had to found their own academies, but the quality of these training-courses was mediocre. Indeed these men did not possess entrepreneurial skills, and few had a talent for politics or for the administration. Leaders with a university degree only started to appear during the seventies of the last century.
TheRedBaron wrote:None of the experiments with workers councils produced convincing and lasting results.

Many, perhaps all, western states have installed a social and economical council, which advises the government. The labour unions can appoint their own representatives in these councils. I guess that they are the heirs of the traditional workers councils.
TheRedBaron wrote:Besides, the workers councils can not replace the parliamentary system (just look at the Soviet Union).

What do you mean? According to the constitution of the Soviet Union the Congress of the Soviets was the highest political body of the federation, the sovereign.
#14725607
@ Stegerwald
Stegerwald wrote:The socialist ideology is flawed.

In another thread I have defended a phase model of socialism. In its first phase, it demands the socialization of the means of production. Secondly, it advocates a central planning. Thirdly, it adheres to the Keynesian policies. And finally, it presents the policy of the New radical centre - although this last phase has no longer any relationship with socialism. Imho this last phase may still become a success.

Joke: capitalism is the suppression of people by people. Socialism is the reverse. ;)
Stegerwald wrote:Many, perhaps all, western states have installed a social and economical council, which advises the government. The labour unions can appoint their own representatives in these councils. I guess that they are the heirs of the traditional workers councils.

The social and economical councils are certainly not a legislator, and only in rare cases they are an executive. Normally they are just advisory bodies.
Stegerwald wrote:What do you mean? According to the constitution of the Soviet Union the Congress of the Soviets was the highest political body of the federation, the sovereign.

Perhaps I should have omitted this. The intention is to stress that workers councils can not replace the elected parliament.

By the way, do you know why the Soviet Union does not produce stereo radios? Because you always hear the same thing from all sides. :lol:
#14725770
These various conceptions of 'socialism' amount to transitional or compromise systems, including the scientific socialism of the Soviet Bloc nations. What they all lack is what is most basic to the very idea of socialism: direct worker control of the means of production. The worst aspect of these compromises is that they end up being the end itself rather than a path to achieving socialism.

A legitimate critique of socialism is that all the existing historical instances achieved something, but that something was quite different than direct worker control of the means of production. Is that an inherent fault of socialist theory? I would have to say yes, at least in the specific sense that a political philosophy must be capable of real world implementation.

I still believe workers (indeed, all adult humans) need a higher degree of autonomy to become fully human in the best sense. Whatever leads in the direction is fine by me.
#14726088
@ quetzalcoatl
quetzalcoatl wrote:A legitimate critique of socialism is that all the existing historical instances achieved something, but that something was quite different than direct worker control of the means of production. Is that an inherent fault of socialist theory? I would have to say yes, at least in the specific sense that a political philosophy must be capable of real world implementation.

That is a good point. The real world implementation has always been the curse of the socialists. Already in the nineteenth century the socialist party leaders were frustrated, because the workers were more interested in a retirement pension than in the universal suffrage. It was difficult to mobilize the workers for manifestations in favour of suffrage. After WWI, when the universal suffrage had been realized, the propaganda for the socialization of the means of production turned into a total failure. The workers simply did not care about the possession of the means of production. They just wanted shorter working-times and higher wages.

In the second phase the socialist parties propagated the central planning in combination with private property. The new slogan was that the people must control the means of production, not own it. Of course this is not socialism in the strict sense. In practice the central planning implies a command economy, which is not a pleasant system. Moreover it does not yield high wages.

The fault of socialism appears to be indeed that there is no obvious relation between the goal (autonomy) and the instrument (control of the means of production). At a deeper psychological level, this means that the socialist philosophers err in their notion of human nature.
quetzalcoatl wrote:I still believe workers (indeed, all adult humans) need a higher degree of autonomy to become fully human in the best sense.

I agree completely. However, a high degree of autonomy is a tricky concept. For human individuals are strange creatures, who are inclined towards instant gratification, and who decide on the basis of heuristics. Their rationality is limited. Up to a certain degree they do need to be protected against their most primitive urges. It is a paradox that too much freedom wil destroy all chances for personal autonomy. There is a need for pension plans, prohibition of addictive substances, safety regulations for commodities etcetera.

Joke: a Bavarian sits in front of a pig's head and is about to start eating. A visitor from Berlin asks: "My good man, you will not eat this pig's head without company, do you?" The Bavarian replies: "Of course not. I will also get four farinaceous balls and cabbage". :D
#14726217
TheRedBaron wrote:The fault of socialism appears to be indeed that there is no obvious relation between the goal (autonomy) and the instrument (control of the means of production). At a deeper psychological level, this means that the socialist philosophers err in their notion of human nature.


However, there is one obvious relation: concentrated control/ownership of the means of production will continuously subvert/rollback gains made by democratic socialists. We could say of socialism that the diagnosis is accurate, the prescription faulty, and the prognosis unknown.
#14726456
@ quetzalcoatl
quetzalcoatl wrote:However, there is one obvious relation: concentrated control/ownership of the means of production will continuously subvert/rollback gains made by democratic socialists. We could say of socialism that the diagnosis is accurate, the prescription faulty, and the prognosis unknown.

At last, we disagree on something! At the start of the thread Mikolaj asks: "What kind of things to democratic socialists do once they have a majority?", which covers a range of measures. Let us concentrate on the control/ownership of the means of production. What is the socialist diagnosis, and why is it accurate? What arguments support their claim?
#14727260
TheRedBaron wrote:Let us concentrate on the control/ownership of the means of production.

That is where socialism went wrong, and capitalism gleefully copied the socialist error. The moment you conflate land and capital as "the means of production," you are wrong, and make it impossible ever to be right. Land and capital are utterly different, and their relationships to labor are utterly different, because one is rightly private property and the other is not. Socialism and capitalism both reject that fact, though for opposing reasons. That is the whole problem with both socialism and capitalism in a nutshell: socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital; capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land.
What is the socialist diagnosis, and why is it accurate?

The socialist diagnosis is that the means of production are not rightly private property, and it is not accurate.
What arguments support their claim?

There is no argument to support the claim, merely a refusal to make the crucial distinction between land and capital. Marx was provably wrong. Henry George was provably right. It's really just that simple.
quetzalcoatl wrote:However, there is one obvious relation: concentrated control/ownership of the means of production will continuously subvert/rollback gains made by democratic socialists.

That is false. Concentration of control or ownership is all but irrelevant. It is the nature of control and ownership that counts. In the case of capital, whether it is privately or collectively owned determines efficiency and productivity of use, as we see being proved yet again in Venezuela.

In the case of land, the same point applies, as we see being proved everywhere. Whether landowning is concentrated or not is almost irrelevant, because the supply of land is fixed: there is no competition either way, and it is an immutable monopoly. Whether landholdings are minutely divided or land is all owned by the king, the owners can't do better than to collect the market rent.
We could say of socialism that the diagnosis is accurate, the prescription faulty, and the prognosis unknown.

False. The diagnosis is baldly wrong, the prescription accordingly harmful, and the prognosis is certain failure.
TheRedBaron wrote:The real world implementation has always been the curse of the socialists.

Because their whole program is based on denying objective (i.e., real world) facts.
The fault of socialism appears to be indeed that there is no obvious relation between the goal (autonomy) and the instrument (control of the means of production).

Not quite. The fault is that socialists refuse to know the fact that private ownership of land removes people's autonomy, while private ownership of capital secures and enhances it.
At a deeper psychological level, this means that the socialist philosophers err in their notion of human nature.

No, the error is in their notion of property.
#14727281
I really don't want to go down this road once again, particularly with someone as dogmatic and absolutist as TtP. I will concede land shouldn't be property, but changing this in itself won't release the masses from wage slavery.

In the ultimate analysis, Georgianism falls to the same critique as socialism: there is no conceivable way to get here to there.
#14727556
quetzalcoatl wrote:I really don't want to go down this road once again, particularly with someone as dogmatic

IOW, I will not compromise on the facts.
and absolutist as TtP.

IOW, I know that facts are absolute.
I will concede land shouldn't be property, but changing this in itself won't release the masses from wage slavery.

True, it is not a sufficient condition. But it is a necessary one, and far the most important one. Wage slavery, above all, reflects the forcible removal of the workers' options, especially the option of using what nature provided to provide for themselves. It was the Enclosures, not private ownership of capital, that filled the cities with workers desperate to work for a pittance just to stave off starvation. To really free the masses from wage slavery, we would also have to:

1. Ensure everyone free, secure tenure on enough of the available advantageous locations of their choice to give them adequate access to economic opportunity without having to pay the full rent for it;
2. End the privilege of private banksters to issue debt money;
3. End ownership of knowledge and ideas through IP monopolies.

Without the first reform, workers would still have to pay too much for access to opportunity. Without the second, private banksters would still be able to force everyone else into enough debt to absorb all their earnings above subsistence in debt service. Without the third, IP monopolists would still be able to deprive people of access to the knowledge and ideas needed to participate in modern society and a modern economy.
In the ultimate analysis, Georgianism falls to the same critique as socialism: there is no conceivable way to get here to there.

Counsels of despair? I wouldn't say there is no conceivable way. There is merely no easy way, especially not politically. The worthwhile things are never easy. But a major reason justice is not easy politically is precisely the sort of obdurate, anti-justice, socialist denialism quetzalcoatl exemplifies.

ISIS doing a terrorist attack for money on a Frid[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]