“Stu Says:
September 6th, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Much of the left’s worldview is based on the belief that human nature is malleable. It is thus to their disappointment when these “utopian” images end up in actual hellholes such as Venezuela, North Korea and the late unlamented Soviet Union. …”

It probably is malleable if you mean it species-wise and selectively kill off enough of the population, or reduce their ability to procreate, over a long enough period.

The problem is, is that you cannot maintain a functioning developed economy – which is what a socialist, energy redistributing system requires by Marx’s own theory – long enough for a termite race of humanoids to develop and keep it functioning.

A few genocidal gestures here and there, a few decades of reeducation and terror, won’t suffice to make such a life seem worth living for most of present humanity or for their survivors in the event of only a “modest” culling.

I suppose a new socialist man could be built, but it would take even greater atrocities than the even the most ardent of the failed attempts of the past were able to produce. Such a socialist man would not really be a man at all. It would be something else and quite alien to Western man considered as a social type, and probably psychologically and morally alien to much of the rest of humankind as well.

So much then for successful socialism equating to “humanism” as Marx proclaimed.

“I used to marvel at how many California additions, and improvements, built beyond the immediate gaze of the authorities, are un-permitted. Defeats the original purpose altogether; but, I guess that when government becomes overbearing, people will figure out a way to circumvent it.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax

They even both changed their names for political purposes.

A paper recently published by Stanford University’s graduate school of business (“Wealthy Elites’ Policy Preferences and Economic Inequality: The Case of Technology Entrepreneurs” https://tinyurl.com/y9qv2w65) includes a survey that records responses to the following statement:

“I would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could.”

Percentages who agree with the statement:
Technology founders 23.5
Democratic donors 5.1
Republican donors 68.4
Democrats (public) 43.8
Republican (public) 62.5

The low percentage for donors to the Democratic Party are unsurprising, and I found the other numbers to be very encouraging.

Of course, there are other polls that seem to provide conflicting results, but that’s the nature of surveys. I’ll take my good news where I can get it.

I guess the question that would reveal real intent when people talk like de Blasio is: “if we institute this reform, would you agree to give up your current position of influence and step to the back of the line?”

Probably not: even when the market largely influences prices, the state manages to insert itself into the bargain with things like permit fees, tax rebates, etc.

But a starting point might be divided countries, like, say the two Germanys or the two Koreas. Those are recent and current examples of how state intervention makes peoples’ lives better.

Oh, what’s that you say? They didn’t do it right? Oh, Ok, de Blasio and Bernie Sanders (or Elizabeth Warren) will certainly do it right. I get it.

“Problematic” is a gross understatement. You are evading the truth.

“I was simply trying to provide wider context.”

What context could be wider than his actual words, laying out very clearly just how extreme his ambitions are?

“Let’s say I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t view him as far left though.”

To a Stalinist he might seem moderate. I will not agree that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Rather, you are evading the truth in the service of a full-Communist totalitarian ideology that you will not admit to following.