Can we please relax about 'socialism?'

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Quote

 

Can We Please Relax About ‘Socialism’?

By David Bentley Hart
April 27, 2019

Only in America is the word freighted with so much perceived menace.

To be trapped in the boarding area of a smallish airport in the upper Midwest is, as often as not, to be subjected to that bestial din of fricatives, gutturals, plosives and shrieks of hysterical alarm that constitutes political discussion on Fox News, pouring incessantly from those obnoxious pendulous ceiling televisions. And unless one fancies running the T.S.A.’s gantlet of gropers again, there’s no escape. The experience is especially nasty if one’s wait coincides with the prime-time shows hosted by those two almost indistinguishable fellows with the suety faces, bouffant coiffures and nerve-racking mezzo-castrato voices.

That fate, at least, I avoided a few weeks back. Instead, there I was with the commentator Ben Stein hovering over me like some grim heathen god, exuding all the effervescent charm of a despondent tree sloth, glumly wobbling his jowls and opining that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez espouses a political philosophy that in the past led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin.

Now, I realize that this has become axiomatic on America’s excitable right. I know also that in this country we employ terms like “socialism” with wanton indifference to historical details and conceptual distinctions. I grasp too that many among us truly believe that, say, a higher marginal tax rate or a public subsidy for poor children’s dentistry is only a step away from the gulags. And I am painfully aware that the male Fox commentariat nurtures its sickly obsession with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez partly because they resent her cleverness, charisma and moral vitality, but mostly because they suspect that in high school she was one of those girls they had no hope of getting a date with (though, really, she comes across as someone who could look past a face of even the purest suet if she thought she glimpsed a healthy soul behind it).

Just then, however, I was emotionally unprepared for this particular assault on my intelligence. I cast a fond, forlorn glance back in the direction of those T.S.A. agents and their warm inviting paws.

Absurd as it was, though, Mr. Stein’s remark was not all that far removed from mainstream American public opinion. Even the liberal “left” in this country is densely populated with politicians whose stated views on socialism seem scarcely more exact.

It may be amusing to hear Republicans assert that a military kleptocracy like Venezuela is a socialist country because its government uses that word when lying about itself (rather in the way that North Korea claims to be a people’s democratic republic). It may make one wince to see Senator Bernie Sanders obliged (as he was on Monday at a town hall hosted by CNN) to explain once more that the totalitarian statism of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the (far older) tradition of democratic socialist thought. But fair’s fair, it’s not much less bizarre to hear a “progressive” like Julián Castro, the former housing secretary, assert that “socialism” simply means state seizure of all the means of production. (Had Marx and Engels only known this, they might have spared themselves the effort of denouncing the socialists of their time for failing to call for a completely centralized economy.)

Well — only in America, as they say. Only here is the word “socialism” freighted with so much perceived menace. I take this to be a symptom of our unique national genius for stupidity. In every other free society with a functioning market economy, socialism is an ordinary, rather general term for sane and compassionate governance of the public purse for the purpose of promoting general welfare and a more widespread share in national prosperity.

In countries where, since World War II, the principles of democratic socialism have shaped public policy (basically, everywhere in the developed world except here), the lives of the vast majority of citizens, most especially in regard to affordable health care, have improved enormously. This is acknowledged by almost every political faction, whether “liberal” (like Social Democrats), “conservative” (like Christian Democrats) or “progressive” (like Greens). And the preposterous cost projections that American conservative propagandists routinely adduce to prove that “socialized medicine” or a decent public option would exhaust our Treasury are given the lie in each of those countries every day.

Democratic socialism is, briefly put, a noble tradition of civic conscientiousness that was historically — to a far greater degree than either its champions or detractors today often care to acknowledge — grounded in deep Christian convictions. I, for instance, am a proud son of the European Christian socialist tradition, especially in its rich British variant, as exemplified by F.D. Maurice, John Ruskin, William Morris, R.H. Tawney and many other luminaries (including, in his judiciously remote way, C.S. Lewis), but also in its continental expressions (see, for example, Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, with its prescient warnings against the dangers of unfettered capitalism).

True, I have lived abroad often enough to be conscious of the flaws in various nations’ social democratic systems. But I know too that those systems usually make possible something closer to a just and charitable society than ours has ever been. I can also tell the difference between Venezuela and today’s Germany, or the Scandinavian states, or France, or Britain, or Australia, or Canada (and so on).

One need not idealize any of these nations or ignore the ways in which they differ in balancing public and private financing of civic services. But all of them are, broadly speaking, places where — without any unsustainable burden on the national economy — the cost of health care per capita is far lower than it is here and yet coverage is universal, where life spans are longer, where working people are not made destitute by serious illnesses, where a choice between food or pharmaceuticals need never be made, where the poor cannot be denied treatments by insurance adjusters, where pre-existing health conditions could never be denied coverage, where most people have far more savings and much lower levels of debt than is the case here, where very few families live only a paycheck away from total poverty, where wages generally keep pace with inflation, where every worker has decent vacation time each year, where suicide and opioid addiction are not the default lifestyle of the working poor, where homelessness is exceedingly rare, where retirement care is humane and comprehensive and where the schools are immeasurably better than ours are.

Americans, however, recoil in horror from these intolerable impositions on personal liberty. Some of us are apparently even, like Mr. Stein, canny enough to see the shadow of the death camps falling across the whole sordid spectacle. We know that civic wealth is meant not for civic welfare, but should be diverted to the military-industrial complex by the purchase of needless weapons systems or squandered through obscene tax cuts for the richest of the investment class. We know that working families should indenture themselves for life to predatory lending agencies. We know that, when the child of a working family has cancer, the child should be denied the most expensive treatments, and then probably die, but not before his or her family has been utterly impoverished.

We call this, I believe, being free. And as long as we have access to all the military-grade guns we could ever need to fight off invasions from Venus, and to assure that our children will be slaughtered at regular intervals in their schools, what else can we reasonably ask for?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/sunday/socialism.html

 

I think it's also attributable to Americans' inability to think outside of the extremes.  If something isn't "A" then it must be "Z", and we all know Z is horrible!  We can't seem to do anything or even think in terms of moderation - understanding that there's a whole spectrum of options and ways of considering an issue that exists between 'pure and undefiled' polar opposites.

[homersapien 11,388]

Thank you Titan, that was great!

In fact, the book I just finished - "The Price of Civilization" (Sachs) - takes on this and related subjects in very well-written detail.  (I will be writing more about what Sachs has to say as soon as I get my own copy and start highlighting.)

To the point of your article, Sach's presents some very interesting data on what many in our country consider to be "socialist" countries, particularly in Scandinavia.

His basis theses was that have we allowed our governance to get far off track.

For example, we have allowed big money to take over our political process and the country is ruled more by corporations than by the people (corporatocracy). Both political parties today have been totally corrupted by this model and he feels a third party will be required to break out of this mold.

Another example is how outsourcing is not the same as reducing the size of government and outsourcing comes with a lot of negative effects, such as serving the military-industrial complex.  But I digress....

He offers up solutions. 

And this was written prior to Trump's election! (He comes down pretty hard on Obama btw.)

I plan to start a thread on it in the near future.

 

[DKW 86 7,426]

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I think it's also attributable to Americans' inability to think outside of the extremes.  If something isn't "A" then it must be "Z", and we all know Z is horrible!  We can't seem to do anything or even think in terms of moderation - understanding that there's a whole spectrum of options and ways of considering an issue that exists between 'pure and undefiled' polar opposites.

We are this way because our society has been Rush-ed, Hannity-ed, and Fox-ed into thinking this way. Why? Because nuanced thinking doesnt fit sound bites and simple-minded narratives. Look, folks, if your thinking is done for you by some TPM or by some crazy radio or talk show host you aint getting educated, you are getting indoctrinated. This is how we end up with Roy Moore winning the Republican nomination for  Senate. CTT may well end up an Alabama Senator because he has high name recognition, is well liked, and has an R by his name. Notice I didnt say a word about his qualifications?

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Great article Titan.  It's still amazing to me that people are willing to accept the same tired fear-mongering arguments instead of looking at successful countries with specific social programs that make sense and following examples.  The ability of so many to accept a bad system in the name of capalistic purity, even when pure capitalism is actually detrimental to a large portion of those same people, is mind boggling.

[homersapien 11,388]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Great article Titan.  It's still amazing to me that people are willing to accept the same tired fear-mongering arguments instead of looking at successful countries with specific social programs that make sense and following examples.  The ability of so many to accept a bad system in the name of capalistic purity, even when pure capitalism is actually detrimental to a large portion of those same people, is mind boggling.

These people do not make a distinction between investing for the common good - which helps us all individually as well as collectively - and (consumptive) spending.

Another factor is a disregard for the need for government involvement in our economy and a disregard for government expertise.

This wasn't the case immediately following the great depression and WWII. It started primarily with Reagan in the 80's who mistakenly labeled government as "the problem"  for the economic turmoil of the late 70's, which were largely external.  The effects of this erroneous thinking have lingered until today in the form of unthinking dogma.

But I think the times are "a' changing".

[DKW 86 7,426]

I think a problem that simple thinkers on both sides point to is Reagan as either ALL A or ALL Z. Reagan was a Union President. He was a Democrat. 

Reagan came to power arguing for a fix for the situation that was at hand in 1980. He did not argue for:

1) Republicans, he did not advocate a once and for all time fix for all economic issues and problems. His answer was unique to the 1980 situation.
2) Democrats, he did not want a totally non-governmental solution. He wanted reforms that he would never get to problems in 1980. When he was governor of California he has progressive ideas and was well liked by all. 

It is too simple to just lump everything the guy did into extremist views, even if it is 2 differing views depending on your partisanship. 

Is this not what the thread is about?

YES! Another facepalm!

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

On 4/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, TitanTiger said:

I think it's also attributable to Americans' inability to think outside of the extremes.  If something isn't "A" then it must be "Z", and we all know Z is horrible!  We can't seem to do anything or even think in terms of moderation - understanding that there's a whole spectrum of options and ways of considering an issue that exists between 'pure and undefiled' polar opposites.

I agree with your thoughts about extremes, but this article is as extreme as it gets.  If the purpose of the article was to find a middle ground it failed.  The author starts off by bashing the people he is trying to find middle ground with, how will that help his cause?  He appears to pander to those that only agree with him.

Some social programs are good and can be run with success as seen in Europe.  So there is a starting point.  However, the author slips in this gem that tends to polarize the people who hold the Constitution close to their hearts.

On 4/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, TitanTiger said:

Americans, however, recoil in horror from these intolerable impositions on personal liberty

He assumes that this is a bad thing.  If he didn’t use extreme language, he might have been taken more seriously by the people he would like to find middle ground with.  He is very partisan and he can’t see it.

And then there is this:

On 4/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, TitanTiger said:

We call this, I believe, being free. And as long as we have access to all the military-grade guns we could ever need to fight off invasions from Venus, and to assure that our children will be slaughtered at regular intervals in their schools, what else can we reasonably ask for?

He calls for everybody to relax on Socialism and ends with a call to give up our rights, which is Socialism.  I do support the 2A, but if the government gets rid of this amendment, what’s next?  Illegal search and seizure (we already have cash forfeiture laws), due process, freedom of speech, religion?

Progress is a great thing, but it has to be slow and thought out. Otherwise it’s a revolution.  JMO, I hope it’s still OK to have one.

[homersapien 11,388]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

And then there is this:

He calls for everybody to relax on Socialism and ends with a call to give up our rights, which is Socialism.  I do support the 2A, but if the government gets rid of this amendment, what’s next?  Illegal search and seizure (we already have cash forfeiture laws), due process, freedom of speech, religion?

 

You are very effective at making the point of the OP article, as well as Titan's.

And what's with "getting rid of the 2nd amendment"?  Is the fact RPGs are illegal an assault on the 2nd amendment?  How about hand grenades?  (And puuuuleeez don't tell me how assault rifles can be used for hunting.  So can RPGs.  And I hear hand grenades are great for "fishing".)

You sound like exactly the sort of person that is the subject of this article.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are very effective at making the point of the OP article, as well as Titan.

(And how did "getting rid of the 2nd amendment" enter into the discussion in the first place?)

The author dared make a snarky comment about our priorities using our love of guns and like you say, he went and proved my point that no one cares to think beyond extremes. Any criticism of the priority we place on gun rights means “SOCIALISM OMZG!”

[homersapien 11,388]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The author dared make a snarky comment about our priorities using our love of guns and like you say, he went and proved my point that no one cares to think beyond extremes. Any criticism of the priority we place on gun rights means “SOCIALISM OMZG!”

Yeah, I went back and edited my post accordingly, but you're right, these people have only one speed - extremism.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You are very effective at making the point of the OP article, as well as Titan's.

And what's with "getting rid of the 2nd amendment"?  Is the fact RPGs are illegal an assault on the 2nd amendment?  How about hand grenades?  (And puuuuleeez don't tell me how assault rifles can be used for hunting.  So can RPGs.  And I hear hand grenades are great for "fishing".)

You sound like exactly the sort of person that is the subject of this article.

A typical response of the extreme left with no middle ground just as Titan stated.  The author of the article was biased to the extreme.  If he wanted common ground from the beginning, he wouldn’t spout displeasure for someone’s point of view, such as the Fox viewers.  He was writing for his flock and found no middle ground as Titan was proposing.

As stated in my post:

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Some social programs are good and can be run with success as seen in Europe.  So there is a starting point

I can see that there needs to be more discussion on this subject (health care) and I’m not dismissing it out of hand. I just thought the article was just as extreme as what Titan was against.  If you want common ground, don’t use language that can be construed as extreme.

As to the 2A, the point is the loss of individual rights, not necessarily the 2A.  The article wanted the reader to “relax about Socialism” so bringing up even a hint of losing one’s individual rights should not be in the article.  I just guess you and Titan can’t see that.

You didn’t really comprehend what I was saying and automatically went to the extreme.  Who is it that sounds exactly the sort of person that only has extreme views?

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

The author dared make a snarky comment about our priorities using our love of guns and like you say, he went and proved my point that no one cares to think beyond extremes. Any criticism of the priority we place on gun rights means “SOCIALISM OMZG!”

See my post to Homer, talk about going to the extreme and never leaving.  No middle ground or conversation.

[homersapien 11,388]

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

A typical response of the extreme left with no middle ground just as Titan stated. 

Is this projection or what?  You said:

" He calls for everybody to relax on Socialism and ends with a call to give up our rights, which is Socialism. "

That's extremist (and inaccurate).  You are exactly who this article was about.

[Mikey 16,625]

The writer is a typical obnoxious, self-aggrandizing jerk from the northeast. Any time I see a writer using $50 words to express a $2 opinion I immediately take everything he wrote with a large dose of salt. He may have some points worthy of discussion but he needs to hire someone else to write them down for him. His verbose prose is silly.

I suspect his bitterness is due to the fact that those common, gun totin' folk he so despises whipped his butt in the last presidential election.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

10 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The writer is a typical obnoxious, self-aggrandizing jerk from the northeast. Any time I see a writer using $50 words to express a $2 opinion I immediately take everything he wrote with a large dose of salt. He may have some points worthy of discussion but he needs to hire someone else to write them down for him. His verbose prose is silly.

I suspect his bitterness is due to the fact that those common, gun totin' folk he so despises whipped his butt in the last presidential election.

I like David Bentley Hart.  He has an acerbic wit and an outsized vocabulary.  But a cursory read of his book, "Atheist Delusions" will confirm that he's not some lefty that just pokes fun at conservatives.  I will acknowledge that sometimes the vocabulary makes reading difficult.  But I think one can engage with his points regardless.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

48 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The writer is a typical obnoxious, self-aggrandizing jerk from the northeast. Any time I see a writer using $50 words to express a $2 opinion I immediately take everything he wrote with a large dose of salt. He may have some points worthy of discussion but he needs to hire someone else to write them down for him. His verbose prose is silly.

I suspect his bitterness is due to the fact that those common, gun totin' folk he so despises whipped his butt in the last presidential election.

Wait a second here.  Because someone has the audacity to use big words and language, that's a bad thing for you?  That says more about your level of intellect and ability to interact/understand than it does his.  We should all aspire to speak of higher mind.  The type of thinking you espouse is exactly why newspapers have been written at or below an 8th grade level for decades.

[maxwere 82]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

These people do not make a distinction between investing for the common good - which helps us all individually as well as collectively - and (consumptive) spending.

 

How do you propose we discern the difference between public investment and wasteful spending (special interest)?

[maxwere 82]

49 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The writer is a typical obnoxious, self-aggrandizing jerk from the northeast. Any time I see a writer using $50 words to express a $2 opinion I immediately take everything he wrote with a large dose of salt. He may have some points worthy of discussion but he needs to hire someone else to write them down for him. His verbose prose is silly.

I suspect his bitterness is due to the fact that those common, gun totin' folk he so despises whipped his butt in the last presidential election.

That's harsh, but he does come across as a bit of a dilettantish contrarian.

[AFTiger 282]

Titan. You have confused me.

What is your topic?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

37 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Titan. You have confused me.

What is your topic?

Read the article.

[AFTiger 282]

I concluded it was about justifying socialism. I addressed that with both simple terms and complex posts but you attacked them and summarily deleted them.

I also asserted that AGW was was what I considered a hoax ans also the door to implement socialism on us. But you deleted those. 

I would seem that to stay off your bad list is to completely agree with you and the other lefties.

You are demonstrating why your philosophy and socialism is inherently wrong by closing opposing debate.

 

The problem with socialism is that decisions affecting the people are decided by "elites" who think they know better than the people what is best. Mayor DeBlasio is a good example of the arbitrariness of elites when he decrees arbitrary bans to fight  global warming.

I highly recommend Mark Levin's excellent book "Ameritopia," 

https://www.amazon.com/Ameritopia-Unmaking-Mark-R-Levin/dp/1439173273

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

I concluded it was about justifying socialism.

Then that's your problem.  It isn't.

 

5 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

I addressed that with both simple terms and complex posts but you attacked them and summarily deleted them.

You didn't address it.  You posted nonsense about AGW and socialism (simply), then when you were told it didn't address the article, you thought posting longer form versions made a difference.  It didn't.

 

5 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

I also asserted that AGW was was what I considered a hoax ans also the door to implement socialism on us. But you deleted those. 

Because it still isn't on topic.  But you are not being prevented from discussing those subjects.  You simply need to start your own thread to chase that rabbit as it doesn't pertain to the article posted.

 

5 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

I would seem that to stay off your bad list is to completely agree with you and the other lefties.

You are demonstrating why your philosophy and socialism is inherently wrong by closing opposing debate.

No, to stay off my bad list, stop posting dumb tangents rather than discussing the points the article makes.  I don't care if you agree with me or not and as I stated, you are welcome to post it as its own thread.

 

5 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

The problem with socialism is that decisions affecting the people are decided by "elites" who think they know better than the people what is best. Mayor DeBlasio is a good example of the arbitrariness of elites when he decrees arbitrary bans to fight  global warming.

I highly recommend Mark Levin's excellent book "Ameritopia," 

https://www.amazon.com/Ameritopia-Unmaking-Mark-R-Levin/dp/1439173273

Ok, while that is interesting, it still isn't getting at anything the original post was saying.  Are you really having this hard of a time with the article?

[AFTiger 282]

Actually the article is blather with no concrete ideas.  What I post is never dumb.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

On 4/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, TitanTiger said:

We call this, I believe, being free. And as long as we have access to all the military-grade guns we could ever need to fight off invasions from Venus, and to assure that our children will be slaughtered at regular intervals in their schools, what else can we reasonably ask for?

The above is the snarky comment from the article, below is what MSNBC unwittingly mentioned about heavily restricted gun ownership in Venezuela.  I know Venezuela is a kleptocracy and this could never happen in the US, but the erosion of individual rights is the catalyst to a state owned government.  JMO.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/msnbc-gives-quick-minute-and-a-half-lesson-on-the-need-for-our-second-amendment

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

18 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Actually the article is blather with no concrete ideas.  What I post is never dumb.

If you find yourself unable, or more accurately unwilling, to engage with the article, move along.  Others are doing just fine.