What’s with the Ayn Rand hate?

[Revoltingest]

Do you see the state as essentially a manifestation of a community?

In those cases, yes.

Forget “ostensibly.” You can call a pig a cow, but that won’t make it so.

I think your extreme analogy doesn't address the fact that an emergent
property of government in countries. It represents "the community", the
typical imperfection notwithstanding.
But for those wags who argue that Scandinavian countries are
"socialist", wouldn't your rationale defeat labelling them such too?

 

[Duke_Leto]

In those cases, yes.

I’m honestly curious: why in those cases, but not others? Knowing your generally libertarian principles, I would have thought you’d be more skeptical toward the state in general.

I think your extreme analogy doesn't address the fact that an emergent
property of government in countries. It represents "the community", the
typical imperfection notwithstanding.
But for those wags who argue that Scandinavian countries are
"socialist", wouldn't your rationale defeat labelling them such too?

Again, I’m curious — would you say any state, including a de facto dictatorship like Stalin’s USSR, or an absolute monarchy, represents the “community”? Or do you just apply this to liberal republics?

The Scandinavian countries are no more “socialist” than is Bernie Sanders; they’re liberal capitalist states in which the government offers higher-quality public assistance.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m honestly curious: why in those cases, but not others?

Because those are the ones under discussion.
Hypothetically, there could be different cases.
(I was being careful cuz I know how things go here.)

Knowing your generally libertarian principles, I would have thought you’d be more skeptical toward the state in general.

Where was my skepticism less than usual?

Again, I’m curious — would you say any state, including a de facto dictatorship like Stalin’s USSR, or an absolute monarchy, represents the “community”?

History shows that in all countries, governments tend to form.
They will represent the people to varying degrees.

This gets back to my question....
If PRC, USSR, & NK have governments, & are therefore not
socialist because the government is not the community, then
why are Scandinavian countries (which also have governments)
considered socialist by fans of socialism?

Or do you just apply this to liberal republics?

You suggest a double standard?

The Scandinavian countries are no more “socialist” than is Bernie Sanders; they’re liberal capitalist states in which the government offers higher-quality public assistance.

We agree on that.
So you may ignore the earlier question.
I object to the post-dictionary age, ie, personal
definitions of "socialism" used by fans & foes
to praise or demonize..

 

[Duke_Leto]

Because those are the ones under discussion.
Hypothetically, there could be different cases.
(I was being careful cuz I know how things go here.)

Where was my skepticism less than usual?

History shows that in all countries, governments tend to form.
They will represent the people to varying degrees.

This gets back to my question....
If PRC, USSR, & NK have governments, & are therefore not
socialist because the government is not the community, then
why are Scandinavian countries (which also have governments)
considered socialist by fans of socialism?

You suggest a double standard?

We agree on that.
So you may ignore the earlier question.
I object to the post-dictionary age, ie, personal
definitions of "socialism" used by fans & foes
to praise or demonize..

To get this straight, you see the state as representing a national community, and you see this as essentially legitimate? No matter who's in charge, be it a dictator, a group of oligarchs, or the liberal ideal of republican politicians selflessly serving their electorate?

The only meaningful definition of socialism is essentially that used by Marx and Engels. Other definitions are generally hopelessly confused: some (like yours) seems to have some idea of state control of the economy; yet communists are opposed to the state, so how can this be? 'Socialism' has come to mean anything and everything slightly different than the general American economic model (and sometimes even parts of the States' government is called 'socialist', e.g. when referring to welfare). As you seem to have realized, no one seems to have any real sense of what 'socialism' is, and can't decide if it includes Norway, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., North Korea, and Bernie Sanders all together at once or not. So when referring to socialism (that is, communism), I use it in the sense that communists themselves mean it.

 

[Revoltingest]

To get this straight, you see the state as representing a national community, and you see this as essentially legitimate?

That would be to infer more than I said,
ie, that governments tend to be formed.
Legitimacy...
I'd say that's a variable thing, depending upon
the extent to which the populace is served &
represented.

No matter who's in charge, be it a dictator, a group of oligarchs, or the liberal ideal of republican politicians selflessly serving their electorate?

That would be too sweeping a claim.

The only meaningful definition of socialism is essentially that used by Marx and Engels. Other definitions are generally hopelessly confused: some (like yours) seems to have some idea of state control of the economy; yet communists are opposed to the state, so how can this be?

Communism without a state on the scale of a country
is analogous to entropy decreasing in a
Scratch that analogy....it would elude too many people.
Suffice to say that a country the size of USSR will have a
government. The odds otherwise seem vanishingly small.
So either communism cannot exist as originators envisioned,
or it would exist with modification, ie, the government
essentially acts as &/or on behalf of "the community".

Note a standard dictionary definition doesn't disallow government.
And self described socialist & communist countries seem to follow
common usage definitions rather than arcane age old technical ones.
Definition of communism | Dictionary.com

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.

'Socialism' has come to mean anything and everything slightly different than the general American economic model (and sometimes even parts of the States' government is called 'socialist', e.g. when referring to welfare).

As defined in dictionaries, socialism, communism, & capitalism are fully
independent of the existence of social welfare programs. And I've long
argued that capitalism is the best fuel for them...& politically useful in
keeping the peace...& inevitable in a democracy.

As you seem to have realized, no one seems to have any real sense of what 'socialism' is, and can't decide if it includes Norway, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., North Korea, and Bernie Sanders all together at once or not. So when referring to socialism (that is, communism), I use it in the sense that communists themselves mean it.

I see who is, & who isn't with greater clarity by applying a
dictionary definition. It simplifies everything.