Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The New Socialism

Pursuant to an exchange we had earlier in the comments, here's an interesting perspective from Wired. It seems a whole lot of people besides me are coloring outside the dictionary lines in talking about socialism. Hint: by reading this, you're involved, comrade.

Hat-tip to MikeD for the link.


Chris Bergman said...

Steven, I read the article and what I read isn't "coloring outside the lines", it's a bait and switch. The writer starts out be describing an essentially communistic effort (which it is) and switches to calling it the "new socialism" (which it is not). Because "Wired" is predominantly a techie publication I don't really think the author is being malicious. I think he's just ignorant of the finer differences between the two ideologies. As I alluded in the previous thread, communism is primarily VOLUNTARY whereas socialism is primarily COMPULSORY. You, yourself, have chaffed at posters who confused the two. Do you now wish to point to this bit of inadvertent confusion to justify your earlier obfuscation? Am I now become your Diogenes?

Steven Ayres said...

Gad, Chris, I'm coming to think you couldn't recognize a new idea if it wore a name tag and offered you a free beer. Never mind.

Chris Bergman said...

Get real, Steven, the idea of people getting together to share resources (voluntarily) is hardly new. Neither is using a generally agreeable term to get people's approval and then slipping in a disagreeable one when they're not looking. As in bait-and-switch. Introducing an old concept in a new frame work and then calling it a "new" anything to sound clever, isn't; and you should know better.

To be even more obtuse; socialism doesn't become more acceptable just because you use the term to refer to something that it isn't.