Fallacy of Division, Politics and Democracy

Democracy and socialism are not all that different. In fact, socialism is really just an expansion of democracy into the workplace and property rights. 

What you are saying is quite true and I find that democracy is more or less of a psychological trick to get people to be ok with how they are governed by making them feel like they had a part in the decision. So, if they don't like how they are being governed or are being governed by someone they don't like then they will be less likely to revolt if they know they can vote them out soon and or if they feel they had a part in the decisions. So democracy adds in a kind of self bias and illusion of control that causes us to accept our governing. But having a small partial choice is still better than having no choice at all with say monarchical rule by divine right. At least with democracy the governing wont be led too far astray away from the collective will of the people. 

Fallacy of composition and division are also in politics in other ways as well. For example, Biden is terrible therefore the democratic party is terrible. Or, the democratic party is terrible therefore Biden is terrible. 

Democracy and socialism are not all that different. In fact, socialism is really just an expansion of democracy into the workplace and property rights. 

What you are saying is quite true and I find that democracy is more or less of a psychological trick to get people to be ok with how they are governed by making them feel like they had a part in the decision. So, if they don't like how they are being governed or are being governed by someone they don't like then they will be less likely to revolt if they know they can vote them out soon and or if they feel they had a part in the decisions. So democracy adds in a kind of self bias and illusion of control that causes us to accept our governing. But having a small partial choice is still better than having no choice at all with say monarchical rule by divine right. At least with democracy the governing wont be led too far astray away from the collective will of the people.  

Socialism is very much the expansion of democracy into the workplace and property rights, that is why I put them together, but Socialism is far more than that (merely adding workers to the board of a private company, does make it socialism).  The fallacy of division has the opposite function for Democracy as it does for Socialism, in the former case it is used to give you a reason to actually fight for and defend Democracy while in the latter case it is used to hide a problem that Socialism has which would otherwise ruin the panacea.

That problem is that property that is collectively owned is not owned by the individual workers themselves.  The individuals workers however still expect to 'get paid' in some form or another, they will want the private use of goods from the collective even if they don't own them outright.  In Socialism there appears a conflict between the use of labour in order to replicate goods for private consumption and the replication of goods for public consumption, also the production/replenishment of the means of production. 

Given the majority of the workers individuals interests are to empty the collective treasury into their own homes as it were, how do we keep them from voting to do that and ruining Socialism?  This whole problem reminds me of a biblical proverb.

"The locusts march in formation but have no King,"

There is actually a qualitative difference between a democratic majority voting for the sake of the welfare of their own government and a democratic majority selfishly voting to loot the government they are in charge of.

Fallacy of composition and division are also in politics in other ways as well. For example, Biden is terrible therefore the democratic party is terrible. Or, the democratic party is terrible therefore Biden is terrible.  

Well the European Union loves to point out that it must be a Democracy since being a Democracy is a prerequisite of joining.  That is a beautiful example of the fallacy of composition and this is oft-used by organizations whose democratic credentials are questionable (pretty much all real-democracies) to assert their democratic status, rather than being an argument for democracy as such. 

In order for an organization to be considered democratic, democracy must function at all levels of it rather than just at a few levels. 

You do understand Dr. Richard that I am a Marxist, or near enough.  Are you saying that anything Mises said is similar to what I am saying? Otherwise I am not interested. 

I am saying Mises analyzes Marxism meticulously. My error was in thinking you were interested in exploring Marx. I won't make that mistake again. 

I was only asking what connection what I said might have to what Mises said.  Because it seemed you were proscribing the reading of works you do not understand.