Suffice it to say I think what you think of when you hear the word ‘socialism,’ which I’m guessing is Stalinism, and what the kids today think of when they hear the word, the Obama presidency, are so far apart there’s no use talking. You know, like when Thomas Sowell does his whole reformed Stalinist schtick and wonders why people don’t give him standing ovations for it anymore.
The very colonization of our nation belies the claims of socialists.
Socialism is an economic system viable under most any political hierarchy. In theory it is the most equitable system, but that theory (tried and tried) has never produced a practical/working model.
The only solution/remedy to all tried forms of socialism of any scale is/was the introduction of capitalism.
Oh, yep. There it is. That's the pat notion of 'socialism' that Sowell means when uses the word. It's archaic, but hasn't lost currency as quickly as other American terms for nearly the same meaning: Marxist-Leninist ideology: Communism: Stalinism; and so on. That sense of the word was ideologically blinkered magical thinking when it was current a hundred, even seventy-five or fifty years ago. Allow me to suggest that's not what's meant by 'socialism' in common usage today.
It's no joke that Republicans trying to hang the term around Obama's neck destroyed much of that older meaning. Nevermind that was ostrich-in-the-sand nonsense in the first place, I think you'll find for many people these days 'socialism' connotes any measure to restrain the excesses of unchecked capitalism. Child labor laws? Would once've been immediately recognized as a 'progressive' accomplishment, but I wonder if in the wild you'd have more kids recognize that as 'socialism.'
You might recognize that sense of the word lines up with 'command economy' in the old ideological jargon. Or as it's referred to in modern times, 'the proper role of government.'
The formulation Sowell's been flogging his entire career, of 'socialism' equals Communism equals Stalinism equals progressivism, has always struck me as having been fairly vapid fifty years ago, let alone now.
Any sense of a 'socialism' that's meant to reach right from Stalin all the way to Obama just goes right on out into wingnuttery, to me. Especially when magically it's not also supposed to apply to your man Dubya equally as well.
And there is Libertarian Socialism as well. Socialism, like the term conservative are funny terms. The funny thing about conservatism, it was meant to be a term to describe the desire to embrace and protect the very liberal ideas at the heart of the founding of the US. It sure has lost something in translation now!
It's funny how we all try to put a label on ourselves and others. Those could equally be Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Atheist values, all of which can be interpreted, embraced or loathed depending on the perspective you choose to take. Unfortunately we silly humans generally tend to only focus on the bad parts of good ideals.
Suffice it to say I think what you think of when you hear the word ‘socialism,’ which I’m guessing is Stalinism, and what the kids today think of when they hear the word, the Obama presidency, are so far apart there’s no use talking. You know, like when Thomas Sowell does his whole reformed Stalinist schtick and wonders why people don’t give him standing ovations for it anymore.
The very colonization of our nation belies the claims of socialists. Socialism is an economic system viable under most any political hierarchy. In theory it is the most equitable system, but that theory (tried and tried) has never produced a practical/working model. The only solution/remedy to all tried forms of socialism of any scale is/was the introduction of capitalism.
Oh, yep. There it is. That's the pat notion of 'socialism' that Sowell means when uses the word. It's archaic, but hasn't lost currency as quickly as other American terms for nearly the same meaning: Marxist-Leninist ideology: Communism: Stalinism; and so on. That sense of the word was ideologically blinkered magical thinking when it was current a hundred, even seventy-five or fifty years ago. Allow me to suggest that's not what's meant by 'socialism' in common usage today.
It's no joke that Republicans trying to hang the term around Obama's neck destroyed much of that older meaning. Nevermind that was ostrich-in-the-sand nonsense in the first place, I think you'll find for many people these days 'socialism' connotes any measure to restrain the excesses of unchecked capitalism. Child labor laws? Would once've been immediately recognized as a 'progressive' accomplishment, but I wonder if in the wild you'd have more kids recognize that as 'socialism.'
You might recognize that sense of the word lines up with 'command economy' in the old ideological jargon. Or as it's referred to in modern times, 'the proper role of government.'
The formulation Sowell's been flogging his entire career, of 'socialism' equals Communism equals Stalinism equals progressivism, has always struck me as having been fairly vapid fifty years ago, let alone now.
Any sense of a 'socialism' that's meant to reach right from Stalin all the way to Obama just goes right on out into wingnuttery, to me. Especially when magically it's not also supposed to apply to your man Dubya equally as well.
And there is Libertarian Socialism as well. Socialism, like the term conservative are funny terms. The funny thing about conservatism, it was meant to be a term to describe the desire to embrace and protect the very liberal ideas at the heart of the founding of the US. It sure has lost something in translation now!
That’s wild. I’d never heard of libertarian socialism before. Well, not as such...
It's funny how we all try to put a label on ourselves and others. Those could equally be Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Atheist values, all of which can be interpreted, embraced or loathed depending on the perspective you choose to take. Unfortunately we silly humans generally tend to only focus on the bad parts of good ideals.
"Oh, yep. There it is"
LOL