Far right violence

[Lexicus]

What distinguishes socialism from capital isn't the end-result of an action, but the social logic which that action embodies. The state accruing income and dispensing wages is not fundamentally different than a private entity accruing income and dispensing wages. The methods accrual and dispensation are different, sure, but they vary pretty drastically within the public and private sectors, so that isn't sufficient to demonstrate that they embody too fundamentally different forms.

Are you talking about the state paying its employees, or are you talking about social security and Medicaid checks? I'm not talking about wages paid to the state's employees. If your definition of 'wage' encompasses social security checks, then your definition must be very different from mine.

Which set of rules is this following, thought? That's what baffles me. On a theoretical terrain, describe a moderate welfare state as "socialism" is simply untenable.

It isn't untenable, you just need to lay aside the notion that societies must be either wholly 'capitalist' or wholly 'socialist' and recognize that socialism and capitalism can and do coexist in the same society.

What is the utility of this framing, except to arrange a tiny constituency of moderate socialists behind a New Deal-type program?

Perhaps this is irrelevant to the UK, but in the US I think its utility is demonstrated by, among other things, the relative success of Bernie Sanders' campaign.

I really don't agree with the formulation that socialism is "a society that reflects our values". I think "socialism" and "capitalism" describe distinct and observable types of society, different ways of human beings relating to each other. I agree that a society can be more or less ethical, and that a society can be more ethical without the bloody demise of capitalism,

No, I agree that socialism has an empirical definition - the point is that identifying as a socialist (I was under the impression you also considered yourself a socialist - was I wrong?) means that socialism reflects one's values. My idea of socialism is, as I have hinted in this thread, involves:
- the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant to where one ends up
- where income is not contingent on performing work for the profit of capitalists
- where investment decisions are not made on the basis of profitability

Not an exhaustive list but the best I could come up with in a few minutes of thought. Note that the abolition of markets and private property are not on this list.

For myself, I'd say that I regard the world in 2017 as more ethical than in 1947. There are far fewer empires, rights for women, people of colour and LGBTQ people have been dramatically expanded, and the threat of global war is distant rather than imminent. But would it really be credible to say that 2017 is more socialistic than 1947? It certainly doesn't feel intuitive.

Well, I would argue that the extension of rights is socialistic insofar as being a woman, a person of color, or an LGBTQ person is no longer quite as much of an impediment to success (see first item in my list above). But I'm not sure whether, on balance, the world is more socialistic now than in 1947, and I'm not actually sure that question makes sense. Part of my point here is that socialism and capitalism are qualitative matters of institutional structure, and in that sense it may be impossible to quantify the "amount" of socialism or capitalism in a society.

I think, rather, the process of social rebuilding is an on-going one, something that starts within the capitalist era and ends sometime after the last capitalist has been strangled with the entrails of the last politician, to put a modern spin on an old chestnut. My politics are "revolutionary" only in that I don't think this coexistence can be quite or enduring, let alone that it can be substantially nurtured by a state which represents, fundamentally, an iron commitment to the maintenance of the capitalist social order; in that I think, sooner or later, a direct conflict is inevitable, that this town ain't big enough for two classes.

Yeah, I mean, I certainly agree with that (and that's a proper reading of Marx, too - that the laws of motion within capitalism itself bring about its demise) - but I don't think I can agree with you that the classes are in an existential conflict, inevitably ending in the social death of one or the other (I also don't agree that there are only two classes, but that's a whole nother story). I think socialism, like every other social formation, is a cross-class construction.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read Kalecki's essay Political Aspects of Full Employment? Your idea that the coexistence can't last forever seems quite similar to the central thesis of that essay.

 

[Hrothbern]

The Romanov, Bourbon and Qing regimes did not collapse because of revolutionary notions, rather, revolutionary notions were lend credibility because those regimes collapsed.

Agree
The trick is to highjack the cause of the result

 

[BvBPL]

Similarly, the Julius Caesar co, had previously mimicked Obama, W, and Bill Clinton.

Other productions of 'Julius Caesar' had, but not that troop.

 

[Lexicus]

At any rate, the Russian, Chinese and French revolutions did not in any useful or instructive sense "turn" into Stalinism or Mao or Napoleon, as if history simply ceased to operate beneath the weight of these Bad Men and their Bad Ideas. All three gained power in a context of profound political fragility, not resulting from foolish anarchist attempts to smash the state, but from sober-minded technocratic attempts to piece it together once it had already collapsed under the weight of its own ineptitude. The Romanov, Bourbon and Qing regimes did not collapse because of revolutionary notions, rather, revolutionary notions were lend credibility because those regimes collapsed.

Now this is quite interesting. It's also responding to something that wasn't exactly what I was arguing - I don't blame foolish anarchist attempts to smash the state for the crimes of Lenin and Mao and the rest, but I certainly do lay part of the blame on revolutionary ideology that would countenance almost anything in its attempt to engineer a complete break with the past - then, that is probably a function of your being a better materialist than I am. In my old age I'm afraid I've allowed quite a bit of idealism into my worldview, in the sense that I believe ideas are important causal forces in history.

In any case, though, you can consider that bit about The Revolution irrelevant since it sprang from an apparent misreading of your politics.