Why are we so afraid to call socialists socialists?
34 thoughts on “Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That”
I think I know the problem — we can’t even characterize self-described socialists as socialists, let alone their drop-in-replacements…amirite?
Socialists have always worked by what would be called sub rosa methods concealing their ultimate intent. The Fabians of late 19th century England advocated this approach. Communists and Socialists were often differentiated by their methods; the Communists advocating violent revolution while the Socialists wanted an incremental approach.
Reminds me of the time Khruschev visited the US and humorist George Kirgo said of him, “You know, I hate to say this, but I think that guy’s a communist.”
In the 1930s, when socialists decided the s-word would never be “saleable” in the US, and began to re-market themselves as “liberals,” frequent socialist presidential candidate Upton Sinclair decided to stop running for president, because FDR and the New Deal had pretty much “co-opted” (as the New Left would say in the Sixties) the socialist program. If that was true in the Thirties with FDR, how much would it be true of Obama and the whole post-McGovern, New Left-influenced Democratic Party?
People (usually “liberals”) often say, “Well, it’s only socialism if the State actually owns the means of production outright.” To which I like to reply: “Okay, so you’re not socialists–you’re fascists?” Then they pout and whine and go back to their masturbatoria to make themselves feeel better with a bottle of lube and their photoshopped posters of Michelle Obama dressed like Isle She-Wolf of the IRS. But note that Upton Sinclair, whose socialism I don’t think anyone would question, seemed fairly okay with FDR not nationalizing the factories. He was pretty much able to accept that as a mere technicality, or maybe he figured that would be the next step–maybe in FDR’s fifth term.
You’re just not letting that one go, are you, Bil?
Titus, I will let go of masturbatorium when they pry my bottle of lube from my cold, dead hand.
Because calling another free-market capitalist a socialist because he doesn’t agree with your version of free-market capitalism is plain daft? Just a thought.
By the standards applied here Reagan and Bush I were socialists, Richard Nixon certainly was.
Read much, Daveon? I don’t think “free-market” means what you think it means.
What’s the difference between a communist and a socialist? The commie is in a hurry.
I WILL call a spade a spade. And no, the saying has nothing to do with race.
Over 30 years ago, I read of an uncomfortable joke making the rounds in DC.
Q: What’s the difference between a liberal and a fascist?
A: Liberals don’t wear jackboots.
Imagining different “versions” of a free market is like imagining different “versions” of the truth — perhaps not coincidentally another leftist tendency.
A market is either free, or it’s not. You have to be willing to twist the language to talk about different “versions” of being free.
Well, I sure hope Jim and Chris and Daveon are right about the goodness of Health Care Reform. I don’t care if it is called Socialism or whatever: if this thing doesn’t work, we are just so hosed.
Because calling another free-market capitalist a socialist because he doesn’t agree with your version of free-market capitalism is plain daft?
Oh bother! The little Fabian has emerged from the conservatory to bitch-slap the lot of you for insulting her girlfriend, socialism!
When the politician in question is a Progressive, and not a socialist?
Naah, that’s too logical. {/snerk}
And, no, socialism is not fascism. Nor is 20th-century liberalism socialism, despite Bilwick’s misinformed claims to the contrary. If nothing else, socialists don’t advocate ownership of “the means of production.” They advocate ownership of the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the entire edifice. Polysci 101, guys.
I’m rather disappointed in Kurtz’s column; very poor reasoning. His argument seems to go: Meyerson is a member of socialist organization, hence he is a socialist. Fine so far. Meyerson supports Obama’s policies, ergo Obama must be a socialist!
That’s about as bad as the old chestnut which runs: God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.
Obama is a Progressive. Dust off a couple of history books and research the Wilson administration. He’d fit right in. In a manner of speaking. 🙂
I suppose the differences between 20th-century liberalism (as opposed to 19th-century, or “Classic” liberalism), Progressivism, socialism, communism, and fascism are too hard to grasp these days. History is a dead science these days, historical analysis even more so.
Most of what Obama advocates comes right out of the Wilson playbook, not to mention the Teddy Roosevelt as well.
I suppose the differences between 20th-century liberalism (as opposed to 19th-century, or “Classic” liberalism), Progressivism, socialism, communism, and fascism are too hard to grasp these days.
Differences of degree, not kind. And you can blame the modern “progressives” for smearing your precious distinctions — for them, nothing is off the table. Anything goes. Whatever the opposition cannot stop is fair game. Note that the modern statist doesn’t even pretend to draw a line in the sand anymore — a point at which he will say, “Okay, this is enough power for the state and no more!” Nope, all those distinctions live now only in your history book.
Differences of degree are the very definition of any kind of rational political science or historical analysis. Differences of degree differentiate between an act of self-defense and an act of wanton
Not to mention they are not my “precious distinctions,” but rather the distinction between various political movements.
It is not my fault that you insist on mindlessly tribal distinctions between “us” (right) and “them” (wrong).
The true irony here is that you demonstrate in precise detail exactly how you mirror the faults of your enemy, only in the opposite direction.
They define anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy. You return the favor, but claim that your tribalism is somehow more valid than theirs.
The most cursory examination of Balkan history highlights the complete futility of this sort of dogmatic finger-pointing.
Yes, yes, you’re above it all, and how lucky we are to have the Usual Suspects sweep in here and enlighten us benighted and mindless “tribal” fools who, but for them, would never know dusty history. Amen.
Ideologies are not frozen in time: whether they call themselves liberals or progressives, they drink deeply and inherit broadly from socialism, fascism, communism; trivial points of disagreement (progressive hate Jews, just as Nazis did, but don’t hate Blacks–instead they hate Whites) don’t alter their genealogy. They admire the ideologists of socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism and disparage the philosophers of liberty. By their allegiances they shall be known and labelled.
“They define anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy.”
Hey, not me. I do, however, define anyone who puts a gun to my head and/or tries to lift my wallet (whether directly, like a mugger, or by proxy, like a “liberal”) as my enemy. I’m funny that way.
“Nor is 20th-century liberalism socialism, despite Bilwick’s misinformed claims to the contrary” So you’re saying socialist Upton Sinclair didn’t know his own philosophy?
“Obama is a Progressive. Dust off a couple of history books and research the Wilson administration.”
The true irony here is that you demonstrate in precise detail exactly how you mirror the faults of your enemy, only in the opposite direction.
Wow, you write the word irony while not realizing how your words project the things you actually do. Fascinating.
They define anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy. You return the favor, but claim that your tribalism is somehow more valid than theirs.
And your tribe is what, Polysci 101? So I guess that makes your arguments more valid, eh?
“And your tribe is what, Polysci 101?”
Reading between his lines, Leland, I’m going to guess: “The Pretentious-Statists-Who-Pretend-They’re-Not-Statists Tribe.”
These guys live lives of denial.
Differences of degree are the very definition of any kind of rational political science or historical analysis. Differences of degree differentiate between an act of self-defense and an act of wanton
This is garbage. Are differences of principle irrelevant in analysis?
Differences of degree are superficial at best. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism, Tribalism, Theocracy, Democracy, all lead to the same logical conclusion, because they all hew to the same underlying principles of statism, the subjugation of the individual. Some just proceed to the dark ages faster than others.
A difference of degree cannot account for a difference in principle. Differences of principle are irreconcilable. You cannot have a political body that fundamentally respects both individual rights and the ‘will of the people’.
As for the silly self defense vs. wanton assertion:
It matters not whether a man kills 1 or 1000 people (degree) in determining if his actions are self defense, if those people initiate force against him (principle).
Likewise it does not matter if he kills 1000 or 1, if those he kills never initiated force against him. It would still be murder.
Statists always have trouble differentiating between aggressive and defensive force, Ryan. If they could understand the difference, a lot of them wouldn’t be statists. (Except for the sickies who actually get off on aggressive force, and there are probably more of them in the ranks of The Hive than they would admit.)
Labels don’t matter. Results do. Government without significant limits is dangerous to all of us. All the leftish gnashing of teeth during the Bush years and the GOP version today is hard to tolerate, as the abuses of power are clearly attributable to both parties continuing to expand the scope of government, all while reducing its accountability.
One of these days, someone is going to realize that our government doesn’t have to pretend to be a limited one. And that someone may not hold beliefs that you like.
I think the left is more active–especially now–in expanding the reach of government, but the right has a very poor track record in this regard, too. It’ll be interesting to see whether or not the GOP Congress that’s coming will take advantage of the political cover the economic conditions provide to hit the undo button multiple times.
One of these days, someone is going to realize that our government doesn’t have to pretend to be a limited one.
You write that as if it is a future event.
“Labels don’t matter. Results do. Government without significant limits is dangerous to all of us.” A valid point. In the Nixon years, I used to tweak my “liberal” friends that if it were possible to have effective gun-control laws (which they all wanted), the kind of ominpresent, omnipotent police state that it would take to make them effective would make their worst nightmares of the Coming Fascism (which they all belived Nixon would establish) look like Sunnybrook Farm.
Leland,
Well, I think there are some limits that are still in place, but they are weak and maybe not enough to stop a determined autocrat. We definitely need to put some shackles back on government, sooner rather than later.
Pro,
It was said in what I think is equivalent jest to your statement of some limits are still in place. Yeah, I think those limits are there too, but as you say, they are weak and maybe not enough. No doubt about this:
We definitely need to put some shackles back on government, sooner rather than later.
Leland,
You hold it down, and I’ll get the leg irons.
“You hold it down, and I’ll get the leg irons”
And I slap it around and call it my bitch.
We definitely need to put some shackles back on government, sooner rather than later.
You don’t need shackles on what doesn’t exist. Start trimming the size rather than trusting imperfect shackles. What’s left will be easier to shackle.
I think I know the problem — we can’t even characterize self-described socialists as socialists, let alone their drop-in-replacements…amirite?
Socialists have always worked by what would be called sub rosa methods concealing their ultimate intent. The Fabians of late 19th century England advocated this approach. Communists and Socialists were often differentiated by their methods; the Communists advocating violent revolution while the Socialists wanted an incremental approach.
Reminds me of the time Khruschev visited the US and humorist George Kirgo said of him, “You know, I hate to say this, but I think that guy’s a communist.”
In the 1930s, when socialists decided the s-word would never be “saleable” in the US, and began to re-market themselves as “liberals,” frequent socialist presidential candidate Upton Sinclair decided to stop running for president, because FDR and the New Deal had pretty much “co-opted” (as the New Left would say in the Sixties) the socialist program. If that was true in the Thirties with FDR, how much would it be true of Obama and the whole post-McGovern, New Left-influenced Democratic Party?
People (usually “liberals”) often say, “Well, it’s only socialism if the State actually owns the means of production outright.” To which I like to reply: “Okay, so you’re not socialists–you’re fascists?” Then they pout and whine and go back to their masturbatoria to make themselves feeel better with a bottle of lube and their photoshopped posters of Michelle Obama dressed like Isle She-Wolf of the IRS. But note that Upton Sinclair, whose socialism I don’t think anyone would question, seemed fairly okay with FDR not nationalizing the factories. He was pretty much able to accept that as a mere technicality, or maybe he figured that would be the next step–maybe in FDR’s fifth term.
You’re just not letting that one go, are you, Bil?
Titus, I will let go of masturbatorium when they pry my bottle of lube from my cold, dead hand.
Because calling another free-market capitalist a socialist because he doesn’t agree with your version of free-market capitalism is plain daft? Just a thought.
By the standards applied here Reagan and Bush I were socialists, Richard Nixon certainly was.
Read much, Daveon? I don’t think “free-market” means what you think it means.
What’s the difference between a communist and a socialist? The commie is in a hurry.
I WILL call a spade a spade. And no, the saying has nothing to do with race.
Over 30 years ago, I read of an uncomfortable joke making the rounds in DC.
Q: What’s the difference between a liberal and a fascist?
A: Liberals don’t wear jackboots.
Imagining different “versions” of a free market is like imagining different “versions” of the truth — perhaps not coincidentally another leftist tendency.
A market is either free, or it’s not. You have to be willing to twist the language to talk about different “versions” of being free.
Well, I sure hope Jim and Chris and Daveon are right about the goodness of Health Care Reform. I don’t care if it is called Socialism or whatever: if this thing doesn’t work, we are just so hosed.
Oh bother! The little Fabian has emerged from the conservatory to bitch-slap the lot of you for insulting her girlfriend, socialism!
When the politician in question is a Progressive, and not a socialist?
Naah, that’s too logical. {/snerk}
And, no, socialism is not fascism. Nor is 20th-century liberalism socialism, despite Bilwick’s misinformed claims to the contrary. If nothing else, socialists don’t advocate ownership of “the means of production.” They advocate ownership of the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the entire edifice. Polysci 101, guys.
I’m rather disappointed in Kurtz’s column; very poor reasoning. His argument seems to go: Meyerson is a member of socialist organization, hence he is a socialist. Fine so far. Meyerson supports Obama’s policies, ergo Obama must be a socialist!
That’s about as bad as the old chestnut which runs: God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.
Obama is a Progressive. Dust off a couple of history books and research the Wilson administration. He’d fit right in. In a manner of speaking. 🙂
I suppose the differences between 20th-century liberalism (as opposed to 19th-century, or “Classic” liberalism), Progressivism, socialism, communism, and fascism are too hard to grasp these days. History is a dead science these days, historical analysis even more so.
Most of what Obama advocates comes right out of the Wilson playbook, not to mention the Teddy Roosevelt as well.
Differences of degree, not kind. And you can blame the modern “progressives” for smearing your precious distinctions — for them, nothing is off the table. Anything goes. Whatever the opposition cannot stop is fair game. Note that the modern statist doesn’t even pretend to draw a line in the sand anymore — a point at which he will say, “Okay, this is enough power for the state and no more!” Nope, all those distinctions live now only in your history book.
Differences of degree are the very definition of any kind of rational political science or historical analysis. Differences of degree differentiate between an act of self-defense and an act of wanton
Not to mention they are not my “precious distinctions,” but rather the distinction between various political movements.
It is not my fault that you insist on mindlessly tribal distinctions between “us” (right) and “them” (wrong).
The true irony here is that you demonstrate in precise detail exactly how you mirror the faults of your enemy, only in the opposite direction.
They define anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy. You return the favor, but claim that your tribalism is somehow more valid than theirs.
The most cursory examination of Balkan history highlights the complete futility of this sort of dogmatic finger-pointing.
Yes, yes, you’re above it all, and how lucky we are to have the Usual Suspects sweep in here and enlighten us benighted and mindless “tribal” fools who, but for them, would never know dusty history. Amen.
Ideologies are not frozen in time: whether they call themselves liberals or progressives, they drink deeply and inherit broadly from socialism, fascism, communism; trivial points of disagreement (progressive hate Jews, just as Nazis did, but don’t hate Blacks–instead they hate Whites) don’t alter their genealogy. They admire the ideologists of socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism and disparage the philosophers of liberty. By their allegiances they shall be known and labelled.
“They define anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy.”
Hey, not me. I do, however, define anyone who puts a gun to my head and/or tries to lift my wallet (whether directly, like a mugger, or by proxy, like a “liberal”) as my enemy. I’m funny that way.
“Nor is 20th-century liberalism socialism, despite Bilwick’s misinformed claims to the contrary” So you’re saying socialist Upton Sinclair didn’t know his own philosophy?
“Obama is a Progressive. Dust off a couple of history books and research the Wilson administration.”
Speaking of which:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026865.php
The true irony here is that you demonstrate in precise detail exactly how you mirror the faults of your enemy, only in the opposite direction.
Wow, you write the word irony while not realizing how your words project the things you actually do. Fascinating.
They define anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy. You return the favor, but claim that your tribalism is somehow more valid than theirs.
And your tribe is what, Polysci 101? So I guess that makes your arguments more valid, eh?
“And your tribe is what, Polysci 101?”
Reading between his lines, Leland, I’m going to guess: “The Pretentious-Statists-Who-Pretend-They’re-Not-Statists Tribe.”
These guys live lives of denial.
Differences of degree are the very definition of any kind of rational political science or historical analysis. Differences of degree differentiate between an act of self-defense and an act of wanton
This is garbage. Are differences of principle irrelevant in analysis?
Differences of degree are superficial at best. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism, Tribalism, Theocracy, Democracy, all lead to the same logical conclusion, because they all hew to the same underlying principles of statism, the subjugation of the individual. Some just proceed to the dark ages faster than others.
A difference of degree cannot account for a difference in principle. Differences of principle are irreconcilable. You cannot have a political body that fundamentally respects both individual rights and the ‘will of the people’.
As for the silly self defense vs. wanton assertion:
It matters not whether a man kills 1 or 1000 people (degree) in determining if his actions are self defense, if those people initiate force against him (principle).
Likewise it does not matter if he kills 1000 or 1, if those he kills never initiated force against him. It would still be murder.
Statists always have trouble differentiating between aggressive and defensive force, Ryan. If they could understand the difference, a lot of them wouldn’t be statists. (Except for the sickies who actually get off on aggressive force, and there are probably more of them in the ranks of The Hive than they would admit.)
Labels don’t matter. Results do. Government without significant limits is dangerous to all of us. All the leftish gnashing of teeth during the Bush years and the GOP version today is hard to tolerate, as the abuses of power are clearly attributable to both parties continuing to expand the scope of government, all while reducing its accountability.
One of these days, someone is going to realize that our government doesn’t have to pretend to be a limited one. And that someone may not hold beliefs that you like.
I think the left is more active–especially now–in expanding the reach of government, but the right has a very poor track record in this regard, too. It’ll be interesting to see whether or not the GOP Congress that’s coming will take advantage of the political cover the economic conditions provide to hit the undo button multiple times.
One of these days, someone is going to realize that our government doesn’t have to pretend to be a limited one.
You write that as if it is a future event.
“Labels don’t matter. Results do. Government without significant limits is dangerous to all of us.” A valid point. In the Nixon years, I used to tweak my “liberal” friends that if it were possible to have effective gun-control laws (which they all wanted), the kind of ominpresent, omnipotent police state that it would take to make them effective would make their worst nightmares of the Coming Fascism (which they all belived Nixon would establish) look like Sunnybrook Farm.
Leland,
Well, I think there are some limits that are still in place, but they are weak and maybe not enough to stop a determined autocrat. We definitely need to put some shackles back on government, sooner rather than later.
Pro,
It was said in what I think is equivalent jest to your statement of some limits are still in place. Yeah, I think those limits are there too, but as you say, they are weak and maybe not enough. No doubt about this:
We definitely need to put some shackles back on government, sooner rather than later.
Leland,
You hold it down, and I’ll get the leg irons.
“You hold it down, and I’ll get the leg irons”
And I slap it around and call it my bitch.
We definitely need to put some shackles back on government, sooner rather than later.
You don’t need shackles on what doesn’t exist. Start trimming the size rather than trusting imperfect shackles. What’s left will be easier to shackle.