First off...yeah, I'm on the left on most things, but not this. I'm pretty moderate. I'll attack the right in my question, but you could turn it around and attack the left as well. On the one hand, conservatives cry about how every progressive measure is just a wedge for socialism. Progressive taxation? Socialist. National health care? Socialist. Sometimes, but not always, they go on and point out that being socialist is reason enough to shoot down some proposal, because socialism is wrong and evil and impoverishing and anti-freedom and....ok, breathe now. Breathe. But then, back when we had real communists running countries, they were always deadly afraid of those nations. It struck me that they're argument (intepreted by me, of course ) breaks down as "We should live in constant terror of the awesome might of these nations whose economic system is disastrous." Can anyone square the circle?
First, you have to define socialism. Most conservatives have never studied socialist theory or the social and economic histories of the countries that have historically claimed to be "socialist" to check the accuracy of the claim. Not that this stops conservatives from pontificating on a subject about which they know next to nothing, of course. But we need a definition of "socialism" more accurate than the laughable "Uh.... that's, like, where the government, like, owns everything and stuff. Right?" in order to discuss it intelligently.
socialism SYLLABICATION: so·cial·ism PRONUNCIATION: ssh-lzm NOUN: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively OR by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. Can this serve?
No, I don't think so, because I'm talking about layman's terms here, not political science. I mean, joseph, are you honestly, really confused by what a typical Republican congressmen means when he denounces a Canadian style health care system as socialist, and this self same hypothetical congressman denounces Castro's socialist Cuba, and once upon a time denounced the Soviet Union? I think we all realize that this hypothetical pol is saying that if we pass a minimum wage increase, we're on the road to being like the Soviet Union. Don't outsmart yourself.
Because those communist countries had this tendency to either incite revolts, civil war or invade other countries as a means of exporting their ideology. No country ever became communist without a great deal of violence. Those countries were able to enjoy considerable military might because on the guns vs. butter chart is was always heavily skewed towards the former. North Korea is undeniably an economic catastrophe that can barely feed its own people, yet it could wreak considerable damage with its military. If communists applied their economic system towards a more typical gun/butter distribution they would have been much less of a problem because they would only been able to support a much smaller military. However, even then, they would still be something of a problem due to their proclivity towards violence as achieving their means. A poor man with a gun is still a man with a gun.
Right, in the short term, it sucked to be Angolan. What I'm trying to get at is the (to me, anyway) contradictory notion that socialism was a long term threat to the United States.
I'm merely pointing out that there is a high correlation between "people who are the first to scream 'socialism!'" and "people who know the least about socialism". Do you deny this? If you really wish to talk about the virtues or evil of "government ownership of productive assets", by all means, gab away. But let's not further the already existing inaccuracy of people like your hypothetical ignorant congressman.
I'm waiting for Pakovitz' definition. My guess is it will not have any real-world examples. It will be something like "Gilligan's narco-syndicalist socialism as modified by Kuryakin and Solo. They had a commune in Missouri in 1858 but were crushed by the railroad robber barons."
It was as much a long-term threat to the U.S. as the ownership structure of the Green Bay Packers is to the NFL. It wasn't. What socialism WAS a threat to was the ability of America to project a Coca-Cola fund-extraction model in as many markets as possible. So, not a threat to America, but to the overseas capital intent of American financiers.
So what is the proper definition of socialism? We have heard many times what socialism is not but never in the affirmative. Dave, when asking about the affects/threats on the US are you talking about a pure socialistic society? Gringo mentioned in a previous thread that we were already 45% socialistic as we stand today. Speaking of the NFL, I have heard some say that the NFL is a good example of a socialistic structure. Is this true? Andy
Did you know your average Central American will pay more for a Coca Cola than they will for a beer? There is something funadamentally screwed up about this.
What was the general US opinion of communism prior to WWII? Was the hatred/fear always there or did it only appear because of the cold war?
I'm not sure it ever was. I think the emphasis was on containing communism to make sure it did as little damage as possible to the rest of the world before meeting its inevitable demise. I don't worry about North Korea taking over the US for example, but I wonder what it could so in the last, possibly violent, spasms of its existence.
Re: Re: A thread for left-wingers and right-wingers...how bad is socialism? ...youve also just detailed american foreign policy during the cold war. as for socialism, its always portrayed as the gateway to communism....yet capitalism is never labelled the gateway to fascism. socialists are not communists. and a lot of the time they dont get a long. i think Universal's definition is fair enough, with todays socialists (soc-dems in any case) leaning most towards : Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively ...rather than... by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. the latter part being a little too-heavy handed. socialism isnt just about economics though...its mostly about people getting a fair go at life without encountering the racial/gender/economic bias' they deal with currently. its the purest form of democracy. and thats what really scares the govt officials who try and slander a bill by labelling it "socialist". its a challenge to the DWEM structure. unfortunately a lot of people buy the BS socialism=communism conservative spin...and we're being pushed to privatize all of our public assets as a result...medicare and medicaid being the most recent examples. anyhoo. thats my take. granted a rather biased one, being a soc-dem myself.
Does this mean that a coke costs more or that the man on the street values a coke more highly? BTW saying that nationalized health care is socialist isn't necessarily saying that we're going to hell in a handbasket. I interpret it to mean that after going down that road, it will be very difficult to turn back and we shouldn't do it until we are sure that the status quo is untenable. This is true conservatism and there is good reason to be reluctant about massive change like that.
To Colin's concern about communist nations' proclivity toward violence, I can suggest the importance of leftist thinkers such as Gramsci to provide an explanation. In his short life imprisoned by fascists, Gramsci addressed the problem of winning minds in civil society and the concept of hegemony in capitalist culture as a tool coopting political debate. For those not familiar, Gramsci's definition of civil society is not just the breadth of private, cultural and non-government organizations (e.g. Tocqueville's conception), but how major effectual institutions as universities, media and families direct parameters of debate. (I believe this is what joseph was trying to wedge in earlier). In other words, our whole frame of debate is skewed toward a narrow political outcome. This, of course, is courtesy of the consuming logic of capitalism. The only thing Marx may actually be right on in his observation of capitalism is that it has to exhaust itself. For those with short patience, colonialism and imperialism in all its forms is a trying period for alternatively imposed political economic systems with varying degrees at short term success but never defeating the organizing logic that drove them there in the first place. I don't pretend to have answers, but am forever fascinated by the power that is capitalism.
Yeah, I was thinking the sell by date for that one is rapidly approaching. Got any suggestions for a substitute?