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.
For readers of the Daily Courier in Prescott, Arizona. Comment and discuss. Be nice, now.
Muggs archive
▼
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
3 comments:
I encourage you to share your own views and experience with me and other readers. How you do that matters, and I'm committed to maintaining a place where readers and commenters can feel safe from adolescent BS. So here's the deal:
There are two kinds of anonymous comments: those by people who have a genuine fear of revenge from the dark side, and those from darksiders just hiding to avoid accountability. You may post comments anonymously, but I reserve the right to treat anonymous comments as found items that belong to me and do with them as I see fit.
If, on the other hand, you're willing to stand by your convictions and post under your own name or a regular handle, your comments belong to you, and I'll edit them only on egregious violations of respect for others.
If this doesn't work for you, I'm sure you'll be happier somewhere else.
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?
ReplyDeleteGad, 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.
ReplyDeleteGet 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.
ReplyDeleteTo be even more obtuse; socialism doesn't become more acceptable just because you use the term to refer to something that it isn't.