Economic democracy (i.e. libertarian socialism ... syndical anarchism, etc), simply put, renders obsolete such (early) 19th century (& "Cold War") shibboleths. Politcal democracy (procedural) without economic democracy (substantive) has historically amounted to shareholder "security" at the laissez-faire expense of stakeholder "liberty" – that is, the liberty to participate in making decisions the consequences – costs usually far in excess of benefits – of which they and their communities will have to live with.

:up: :100:

If you truly believe in democracy then you truly believe in socialism. There's no contradiction. Maybe that's why Yurtle the Turtle, aka Mitch McConnell, called statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C "full-bore Socialism"

If I recall from my school days, the two-valued orientation (either/or) was a logical fallacy. Richard Rohr calls it "dualistic thinking". When someone gives you two choices, pick the third. That's the American way.

And it's hard to talk about either, without talking about capitalism. Capitalism is not inherently democratic. See China. And, if costs are socialized, is that socialism?

:up: :lol:

And, if costs are socialized, is that socialism? — James Riley

"Socialism for the rich, rugged-individualism for everyone else." ~MLK, Jr

"Socialism for the rich, rugged-individualism for everyone else." ~MLK, Jr — 180 Proof

:100: Good 'ol MLK, Jr. I always thought "bootstrapping" was appropriate metaphor (impossible) and a self-own, I mean, considering physics and all.

Please cite where the passage you are quoting from Alexis deTocqueville came from.

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Apparently in modern times equality in restraint and servitude has become more attractive than equality and liberty. No thinking required for a mob. Everyone belongs.

Well said.

I wager the attractive part is that they get to release themselves of their duty to their fellow man. Why else would they beg for some state apparatus to pick up their slack?

Ever notice how right-wingers don't read books and substitute that by just pimping bad quotes?

:up:

Ever notice how right-wingers don't read books and substitute that by just pimping bad quotes?

I’m surprised you didn’t link to Jacobin mag.

You don't seem capable of reading more than a paragraph of information so that would have been pointless.

I can read a paragraph of your piffle. But a paragraph full of links and appeals to ridicule is about all you’ve offered.

:100:

Yurtle the Turtle, aka Mitch McConnell — Maw

:lol:

What is so attractive about being a mere number? — Nikolas

Rather, what is so attractive in seeing other people as being mere numbers?

But one thing is obvious; liberty is being rejected for the security of becoming "a mere number" within a grand collective.

Democracy is forcing people into that. Because in democracy, the only hope for success that one has is success through sheer large numbers.

Rather, what is so attractive in seeing other people as being mere numbers? — baker

Snap! :100:

In regard to the pandemic, and in a context of God and humanity, a lady in this ranching country recently asked "Whoever came up with the term 'herd immunity'?"

I did not respond because it was not an open forum, but I wanted to say "Probably the same people who came up with 'Human Resources'."

What is so attractive about being a mere number?
— Nikolas
Rather, what is so attractive in seeing other people as being mere numbers?

But one thing is obvious; liberty is being rejected for the security of becoming "a mere number" within a grand collective.
Democracy is forcing people into that. Because in democracy, the only hope for success that one has is success through sheer large numbers. — baker

OK, so greed and self interests assure that tyranny and the loss of liberty is the only way to restore order. That is typical in the world. However Simone Weil offers another option. Is it possible? Not now. The rejection of the help of Grace is too powerful in the world. She learned the futility of Man's efforts during her years as a celebrated Marxist. She wrote:

Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.

Liberty is impossible without the help of Grace. The secular world rejects the help of grace so the descent into some form of tyranny seems inevitable.

In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Simone Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture. — Nikolas

It certainly looked that way at the time -- 1934. Germany, the USSR, Italy...

But it is a mistake to oppose democracy and socialism: the former is a political system, the second is an economic system. Democracy is better contrasted to totalitarianism, and socialism is better contrasted to capitalism.

The extent to which collectivism dominates post WWII societies is another question, well worth pursuing,

Capitalism operating in ostensibly democratic societies produces a dehumanization of the individual not much different than the collectivist states Weil was observing.

Liberty is impossible without the help of Grace. The secular world rejects the help of grace so the descent into some form of tyranny seems inevitable. — Nikolas

Yet another category disconnected from collectivism, capitalism, democracy, totalitarianism, socialism, and everything else. Maybe Grace, freely bestowed by a loving God, is necessary for liberty -- but the idea is altogether untestable and undebatable because grace is a mystery for religious people, non-existent for secular people.

The kind of mass societies we find ourselves in are more atomized than collectivized.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." ~Seneca, tutor & advisor to a Caesar

Liberty is impossible without the help of Grace. — Nikolas

Funny isn't it? Consider how democratic market socialist societies tend to be the most secular – least religious ‐- and yet for decades have been consistently atop surveys of (social welfare as well as material) standards of living such as the UN Human Development Index ... Empirically, it seems, there's an inverse relationship between "grace" (as reflected in the religious affiliation by percentage of the population) and political, economic, social & life satisfaction; apparently, the totalitarian infantilization of "faith" isn't so good for liberty or equality after all (just look at e.g. the very Christian US, Latin America, EU's southern countries and Islamic countries around the globe – all occupy lower ranks on such global surveys).

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." ~Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor

:100: Not that you read my posts, but if you ever see me use the word "grace", which I absolutely love, I hope you do not attach to my meaning all that religious clap trap, and will instead try to parse my use. Religion has tried to abscond with words like a Republican tries to abscond with Old Glory. If it goes on too long with inadequate defense, it will become true and they will own it.

I'll remember that. So what do you mean when you use the word "grace"? I use it to express 'calm attentive poise' (as in, for example, grace under pressure or graceful dancer).

I first used it the context of a distinction between living in grace with what I eat, as opposed to the Christian habit of saying grace before they eat it. Grace would be a humble receipt, without accounting for whether it was taken or given. Where there is a knife and a stone, grace is a respect for the stropping itself, the honing, and the contribution of each, beyond the two participants alone. It's a thank you to the participant (whether they volunteered or not) and not some invisible man in the sky.

I guess I should spend more time with the definition, to refine it better. That's just stream of consciousness. I suppose the use of the word by a Christian like Richard Rohr might be more palatable, but since I don't recall his actually addressing it, I don't want to buy in yet. It just sounds like my take might be more like his than most Christians in general.

Edited to add: I've got no truck with these simple definitions: "simple elegance or refinement of movement" and "courteous goodwill" and "do honor or credit to (someone or something) by one's presence."

Very similiar to how I use terms like grateful & gratitude as a stance but not an address to some invisible sky daddy.

:100:

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified." Simone Weil

People have become content to fill their minds with imagination so there is no room to receive the higher energy of Grace and enable a person to acquire freedom from the prison of Plato's cve

The kind of mass societies we find ourselves in are more atomized than collectivized. — Bitter Crank

Yes. The power of association is cancelled by the point of purchase.

I find Ms. Weil's writings quite insightful and occasionally moving; they, however, belong to a historical moment even darker and more despairing than today, reflecting a "grace" which could not enrich or sustain her brief life. Ms. Weil seems to fatally confuse self-abnegation & justice in her martyred imagination.

No hell below us
Above us only sky — Imagine

An apophatic glimpse of 'pure immanence' ...

↪Nikolas I find Ms. Weil's writings quite insightful and occasional moving; they, however, belong to a historical moment even darker and more despairing than today, reflecting a "grace" which could not enrich or sustain her brief life. Ms. Weil seems to fatally confuse self-abnegation & justice in her martyred imagination. — 180 Proof

Simone didn't want to sustain her life but rather to live it. She accomplished what a person can by consciously living their life. Is the following description as she was nearing death fantasy? If not, what does it mean?

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon