[Pants-of-dog]

Socialism was not brought about by democratic means anywhere. Chile nationalized some industries but was nowhere near full socialism (besides, Allende only got 37% of votes. 63% of votes went to non-socialist candidates. Similarly, the socialists never had a majority in the National Congress). You do not even have one example, stop the nonsense already.

And yet, according to the democratic laws of Chile at the time, they were on the way to socialism, until the capitalists put the dictatorship in place.

Has nowhere been perfected to to the degree as it has been in liberal democracies. Obviously there's always room for improvement.

...and it will not he improved any time soon due to the inherently exploitative nature of capitalism.

Since when has that ever been a "stated ideal" of liberal democracy?

Here is a page from an online textbook describing the basic tenets of democracy. Respecting sovereignty is the fourth in the list.

https://www.boundless.com/political-sci ... ocracy-22/

[Rugoz]

And yet, according to the democratic laws of Chile at the time, they were on the way to socialism

Nope. Allende initially had the support of the christian democrats but lost it after his economic policies turned out to be a disaster. Once socialization was practically stopped (according to the democratic laws of Chile), radical leftists started to occupy land and factories illegally which provoked a violent response by radical right-wingers. The military used the ongoing chaos as a pretense to seize power.

Here is a page from an online textbook describing the basic tenets of democracy. Respecting sovereignty is the fourth in the list.

https://www.boundless.com/political-sci ... ocracy-22/

I don't see it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nope. Allende initially had the support of the christian democrats but lost it after his economic policies turned out to be a disaster. Once socialization was practically stopped (according to the democratic laws of Chile), radical leftists started to occupy land and factories illegally which provoked a violent response by radical right-wingers. The military used the ongoing chaos as a pretense to seize power.

I am familiar wth this narrative. It is notable in terms of what it leaves out, like the concerted US campaign to destroy the Chilean economy, and the millions of USD invested in that.

I don't see it.

Political Science Textbooks Boundless Political Science American Politics
SECTION 4

The Tenets of American Democracy Details about this book
Assign Section Reading
Section Quiz
6 CONCEPTS
Thumbnail
Liberty
Liberty, the ability of individuals to have control over their lives, is a central aspect of modern political philosophy.

Thumbnail
Equality
Equality refers to a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or group have the same status.

Democracy
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Thumbnail
Popular Consent, Majority Rule, and Popular Sovereignty
Popular consent, majority rule, and popular sovereignty are related concepts that form the basis of democratic government.

Thumbnail
Individualism
Individualism is a philosophy that stresses the value and rights of the individual vis-a-vis society and government.

Thumbnail
Religious Freedom
Freedom of religion is a principle that allows an individual or community to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

The UK and the US are particularly bad at respecting the sovereignty of others.

[Rugoz]

I am familiar wth this narrative. It is notable in terms of what it leaves out, like the concerted US campaign to destroy the Chilean economy, and the millions of USD invested in that.

Whatever, as long as it makes you feel good. It's not worth my effort.

Political Science Textbooks Boundless Political Science American Politics
SECTION 4

The Tenets of American Democracy Details about this book
Assign Section Reading
Section Quiz
6 CONCEPTS
Thumbnail
Liberty
Liberty, the ability of individuals to have control over their lives, is a central aspect of modern political philosophy.

Thumbnail
Equality
Equality refers to a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or group have the same status.

Democracy
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Thumbnail
Popular Consent, Majority Rule, and Popular Sovereignty
Popular consent, majority rule, and popular sovereignty are related concepts that form the basis of democratic government.

Thumbnail
Individualism
Individualism is a philosophy that stresses the value and rights of the individual vis-a-vis society and government.

Thumbnail
Religious Freedom
Freedom of religion is a principle that allows an individual or community to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

The UK and the US are particularly bad at respecting the sovereignty of others.

That's just total nonsense PoD. Popular sovereignty here refers to the sovereignty of the American people and nobody else.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am already clear that the only sovereignty that many people from the US care about is their own. And even then, only for certain people in the US.

My point is that this is due to capitalism.

[Suntzu]

Yeah, no problems like that in Russia.

[Perkwunos]

And yet, according to the democratic laws of Chile at the time, they were on the way to socialism, until the capitalists put the dictatorship in place.

I recognize that you may have "capitalism" and "socialism" defined a certain way. But if "socialism" is meant as "state ownership", Pinochet's regime never really abandoned it. Indeed, they had to go as far as to repossess the banks at one point. Also, the copper industry, which has long been a mainstay of the Chilean economy, was never privatized during his regime and not since either.

[AFAIK]

Socialism is synonymous with workplace democracy whereas private property is a form of tyranny with top-down decision making and discipline.

Number of capitalist democracies: ~87
Number of socialist democracies: 0

QED.

So an ideology with a 200 year head start is more secure and better established than one that developed more recently? Good job!

I'd like to take this oppourtunity to boast about my superiority to 6 year old children. I'm so much better than them!

[Pants-of-dog]

I recognize that you may have "capitalism" and "socialism" defined a certain way. But if "socialism" is meant as "state ownership", Pinochet's regime never really abandoned it. Indeed, they had to go as far as to repossess the banks at one point. Also, the copper industry, which has long been a mainstay of the Chilean economy, was never privatized during his regime and not since either.

State ownership is not socialism. It is a movement towards socialism. And since Pinochet's state was a wholly owned subsidiary of Anaconda copper at the time, it still was not actually owned by the Chilean people.

[Truth To Power]

Socialism is synonymous with workplace democracy

No, socialism is collective ownership of the means of production (land and capital). In practice, that means control of the workplace is exercised by the ruling political class to solidify and extend their own power, as has been the case in every socialist society in history, without exception.

whereas private property is a form of tyranny with top-down decision making and discipline.

No, that's incorrect, and merely reflects the socialist's refusal to know the difference between rightful and wrongful private property. Private property in LAND is a form of tyranny because it removes people's liberty to access economic opportunity that would otherwise have been available. Private property in capital, by contrast, is not tyranny because it only offers people access to economic opportunity that would NOT otherwise have been available. Socialists and capitalists are united in refusing to know these self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

So an ideology with a 200 year head start is more secure and better established than one that developed more recently? Good job!

Feudalism had a thousand-year head start on capitalism, and slavery had a many-thousand-year head start on feudalism.

The truth is, although socialism makes the same basic error as capitalism as explained above, capitalism's results are often better because private ownership of land impedes efficiency and production less than collective ownership of capital. The private landowner has a strong incentive to permit efficient production on his land -- no production, no rent; more efficient production, more rent -- and so will often adopt a laissez-faire, hands-off attitude that allows the market to place the land in the most productive users' hands. By contrast, the political class that ends up controlling land, labor and capital in a socialist system experiences only a tenuous relationship with production and efficiency, and pleasing their constituencies takes priority over efficient allocation of production factors.

I'd like to take this oppourtunity to boast about my superiority to 6 year old children. I'm so much better than them!

Per your analogy, I can agree that socialism is a fundamentally childish idea, a puerile fantasy that ignores practical considerations, while capitalism is more like the self-centered teenager who has figured out how to get certain things as a practical matter, but is still not clued in to the big picture.

[AFAIK]

Like I said Liberalism had a 200 year head start. If we compare revolutionary France during The Terrors to revolutionary Cuba during Castro's early days then Socialism comes off in the better light. Or if we compare the death rate from famine in Britain's colonies to that of USSR's then socialism is again looking to be the better option.

What's your opinion on intellectual property, btw? Are patents and copyrights analogous to land ownership?

[Rugoz]

So an ideology with a 200 year head start is more secure and better established than one that developed more recently? Good job!

Capitalism and socialism in various forms have existed since the beginnings of human civilization. The degree to which the economy should be "run" by free markets or the state is an empirical question and only idiots like socialists and libertarians make it an ideological one.

My point is that this is due to capitalism.

How about you concede a point and move on to the next instead of pretending to have made a point you did not? It's good manners.

[AFAIK]

My understanding is that an economy in which the majority of exchanges are conducted in a capitalist manner is considered to be capitalist whereas an economy where communist style exchanges dominate is considered to be communist. At least, that's what people who attempt to make sense of history tell me.

[Rugoz]

My understanding is that an economy in which the majority of exchanges are conducted in a capitalist manner is considered to be capitalist whereas an economy where communist style exchanges dominate is considered to be communist. At least, that's what people who attempt to make sense of history tell me.

"Majority of exchanges"? What does that even mean. What's a "communist exchange" and a "capitalist exchange"?

[SolarCross]

My understanding is that an economy in which the majority of exchanges are conducted in a capitalist manner is considered to be capitalist whereas an economy where communist style exchanges dominate is considered to be communist. At least, that's what people who attempt to make sense of history tell me.

That sounds like an innovation on communist doctrine to me, in which of the holy books of Marx is that from? I think you are straying into heretical thought; immediately report to your local commissar for political re-education.

[AFAIK]

I don't know what the correct terms are but you can go to any society and find people doing capitalism, communism, feudalism and slavery. Israel has some Kibitzes but that doesn't make Israel communist. Roman soldiers would buy things with Roman coins but that doesn't make Rome capitalist. There's no doubt a flat somewhere in London full of slaves, that doesn't make Britain a slave state.

[Pants-of-dog]

How about you concede a point and move on to the next instead of pretending to have made a point you did not? It's good manners.

Right now, the US (like Canada, Australia, and many other countries) is making a choice.

They can choose to continue their capitalist exploitation of land and resources that belong to indigenous people, or they can choose to recognise the rights, equality, and sovereignty of indigenous people.

The first choice is consistent with capitalism. The second is consistent with the democratic ideals of these countries.

These choices are mutually exclusive. They can only choose one. Right now, they are choosing capitalism.

[Truth To Power]

Like I said Liberalism had a 200 year head start. If we compare revolutionary France during The Terrors to revolutionary Cuba during Castro's early days then Socialism comes off in the better light.

But how much of that is just due to nearly 200 years of general progress?

Or if we compare the death rate from famine in Britain's colonies to that of USSR's then socialism is again looking to be the better option.

Measured by average total fraction of population killed by economic scarcity per year, socialism clearly kills more than capitalism. Colonialism's record is worsened by the effects of armed conflict and contagious disease.

What's your opinion on intellectual property, btw?

Abolish it.

Are patents and copyrights analogous to land ownership?

Yes, but in a limited way. Patents and copyrights are privileges that remove people's rights to liberty without compensation, as landowning does. But the patent or copyright holder has made a contribution to production, which the landowner qua landowner has not. Also, in theory the land title does not reduce production, just takes a portion of it and gives it to the landowner. By contrast, IP monopolies inherently reduce production and therefore utility, in order to raise prices: that's how they are designed to work.

My understanding is that an economy in which the majority of exchanges are conducted in a capitalist manner is considered to be capitalist whereas an economy where communist style exchanges dominate is considered to be communist. At least, that's what people who attempt to make sense of history tell me.

The difference between capitalism and communism/socialism is ownership relations, not the nature of exchange.

[Truth To Power]

They can choose to continue their capitalist exploitation of land and resources that belong to indigenous people,

Land and other natural resources cannot rightly belong to anyone as their property.

or they can choose to recognise the rights, equality, and sovereignty of indigenous people.

Indigenous peoples are not sovereign.

The first choice is consistent with capitalism. The second is consistent with the democratic ideals of these countries.

No, making the land over to indigenous people as their private property is still capitalism. Just with different parasites.

These choices are mutually exclusive. They can only choose one. Right now, they are choosing capitalism.

It would still be capitalism if the aboriginals owned the land.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

No, indigenous people running their own land according to their own traditions would not be capitalism. It would be their own thing.