Column: It's time to stop runaway spending
Here's a second case of turning a longish LTE into a "Column," indicating a new category on the op-ed page. In it retired finance exec Paul Border as Jacob Marley rattles the chains of the old order to scare readers about the progressive agenda of the Obama administration, pushing the 'socialism' button repeatedly and prophecying doom and catastrophe if we actually start taxing him and his rich pals a little more.
It's a load of ectoplasmic hooey, of course, and you've heard it all before. But considering the health-care "compromise" (read: capitulation) that's making headway in the committee of Max Baucus (D - Health Insurance Industry) today, I'm not feeling hopeful that Americans will drop this smelly fear-mongering and stupidity into the toilet, where it belongs.
9 comments:
once i see the word "socialism" in an article in the courier, especially a LTE, it's time to stop reading.
as i've pointed out before, socialism describes an approximate area on the continuum of choices made by nations seeking to manage their common assets. no nation is immune from having common assets or making choices about how to manage them, so every nation is socialistic to some degree.
Exactly -- if we do anything together as a group (society), it's socialist. We're social animals, so we're socialistic by nature. I think a reasonable argument can be made that the public holding of corporations is socialistic as well.
The problem we have is that too many Americans don't understand the word and interpret it in terms of '50s propaganda, and skilled propagandists know that you can tag almost anything as socialist and make it stick, because most everything is.
So what might work as counter-propaganda?
No, Sirs, “Social-ISM” is an economic philosophy which places control of all production and assets in the hands of the “state.” The “state” of course, being comprised of mere men in power either by election, fraud or force. Simply put, socialism is an economy where all aspects; price, production, distribution, are controlled by government edict. You both have dictionaries, please use them honestly. If you're going to draw a comparison; fascism is to democracy what socialism is to the free market. It is entirely possible to have a democratic socialism (though not for long, as it must necessarily collapse). Socialism does not seek a method of controlling common assets. Socialism seeks to make all assets common. Socialism is wrong as a system if for no other reason than because it gives mastery over men to men. It deprives the individual of that most basic and essential right, self determination. It is antithetical to the Great Experiment. It has been my observation that those who attempt to minimize the evil of socialism, or obfuscate its nature, do so because they want what others have without earning it. This is not always the case, of course, some are simply ignorant.
There's another sector heard from.
fine, chris. you don't agree with my definition of socialism, though your definition sounds more like communism to me.
but i'd like to hear how you think we should manage our society's common assets. my claim is that such management is the proper task of government -- or do you think that we don't (or shouldn't) have any common assets?
Bearwhizbeer: Use the dictionary. It's not MY definition, it's THE definition that matters. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it. What matters is whether or not what you say is true. The purpose of the discussion is to promote communication. Making up your own definition so the concept seems less vile isn't really honest, is it? Communism is where the "People" hold all assets in common. The "People" make all decisions in common. There are no true communistic systems in practice on this planet. It is an essentially voluntary system. The Pilgrims tried it at Plymouth rock when they first landed, it failed.
On to the topic of common assets. Of course we have common assets; Parks, Forests, Natural wonders, collected tax receipts, etc. These assets are managed through government as they should be. That doesn't make government "socialist". The idea that because we are "social" creatures anything we do together is necessarily socialist is absurd. The two words have the same root but that's all they have in common. "Social" refers to natural behavior. "Socialism" refers to economic policy. If the terms "socialism" and "socialist" are used according to their actual meanings instead of the many blatant attempts to spin them into a dissemblance of their true nature there would be little need to call people into opposition. Their very nature would be enough.
Well, I guess I've sure been told. Now, Chris, how about you tell us about "liberal."
Don't get into a snit, Steven. You and I have been over the term "Liberal" before and we're mostly in agreement since you tend to use that term according to its actual DEFINITION. When you get sloppy with "liberal", I'll call you on that too.
Post a Comment