Tweet
One of the most annoying things about being a socialist in the United States is that people know jack-shit about socialism and yet they constantly feel the urge to confront you with the jack-shit that they know. And I do not mean “jack-shit” as in they are incapable of entering into a debate about the (dis)merits of the ideas of Eduard Bernstein. I mean jack-shit as in they have no fucking clue and, as a substitute for actually reading anything written by a socialist, prefer to fill the gaping holes in their brain about it with whatever the fuck they want. In America, Obama is a representative of socialism. Yes, a guy who is arguably more conservative than most conservatives in Europe is sounding the death-knell of capitalism. Taxing cigarettes is socialist. Seizing private property to build a strip mall is socialist. Telling adult novelty stores that they cannot sell dildos and porn to elementary school children is socialist. The government doing any-fucking-thing is socialist. The problem is not only with conservative and libertarian nitwits either. Liberals do the same shit. The more sympathetic ones might offer up a few kind words and associate some of our favorite government-provided services with socialism. “Hey, you like the fire department, don’t you? Well, that is totally socialism in practice right there!” Sorry dude, it isn’t.
I know the line many of us are given at revolutionary proletarian vanguard cadre summer camp when it comes to this. “People in America are very misinformed about socialism due to years of anti-socialist propaganda, a lack of a sustained history of strong, class-conscious left-wing labor movements, and a generalizable culture of douchebaggery [Okay, I added that last bit], so you need to patiently explain to them what socialism is really about, link it to their class interests, blah blah blah…We’re living in the belly of the beast!!!” Sure. There is probably something to that. But when I am at a bar, or a house party, or some other social setting where alcohol deludes us all into thinking that we have really important things to say and everyone wants to hear our hilarious dick jokes, I kind of do not give a fuck. I won’t be convincing anyone to forget everything they have been told about socialism and start reading the Monthly Review. Hell, I can’t do that when I am sober most of the time. Instead, I am instantly wondering what stupid shit I will hear the moment someone “outs” me by pointing at me and going “That guy’s a commie!” like I am a fucking unicorn (and having lived in Texas for most of my life, I might as well be). Or, what is infinitely more likely, when I out myself because I am bored, drunk, and thus have really, really… really important things to say.
Thing is, and I think anyone who has been a socialist for some time has realized this, no one in situations like that really want to discuss what you believe, or counter your perspective, or whatever. Unless (maybe) you are doing shots with some PhD students, they don’t know what you believe. Also, the people that will approach you about it are usually not going to be those who want to learn, either. It is going to be the libertarian frat bro, the conservative, meathead boyfriend, the dork accounting major who was on his high school debate team, the “practical” liberal who thinks he is so “progressive” (I hate that word now) but becomes William F. Buckley when he starts talking to you, the first-generation American who has some sob story about her grandma’s goat being nationalized by “the Communists” or the girl who thinks Ayn Rand wrote books that have any sort of value beyond a convenient replacement for toilet paper in a post-apocalyptic world. I am sure some of you recognize these characters.
You are probably the only real socialist any of them have ever met. Most of the time, the right-wing ones are busy throwing around the “socialist” label purely so as to anger Democrats in a manner befitting a 10 year old and the liberal ones are busy going “Nuh uh! Nuh uh!” and coming up with reasons why Barack Obama is not a socialist. Because, you know, that would be such bad PR if he actually were one. And socialists are weird, I guess. Anyway, by the time they get to you, they are like “Holy shit! I have only heard about these freaks or mindlessly accused someone of being one of them to get them pissed, but this fucker actually admits to being one!”
We might be socialists, but we live in the United States. We know the typical beliefs of typical American people. We tend to know the difference between a libertarian and a conservative, a New Democrat and a “progressive liberal.” We even might have been one of those people at some time. But keep in mind that they never had the benefit of being bombarded with your left-wing extremist talking points (because Hillary Clinton is apparently a left-wing extremist and they are satisfied with that). Suddenly, they are scouring their brains for everything they have ever learned about socialism starting with their high school social studies text books and ending somewhere between AM talk radio and what their drunken, racist uncle would say at Thanksgiving (not much of a difference there, really). Fuck it. Not even socialism. More like “big C” Communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, social democracy, FDR liberalism, Keynesianism, and every political movement that has occurred in Western Europe since the dawn of the 20th Century become one big cluster fuck of an ideology that most definitely nails it apropos describing your beliefs. And you are now expected to answer for all of it, you Communist Nazi liberal Barack Obama loving Keynesian Europhile you. Forget the fact that these ideologies are readily distinguishable from one another, that that there is wide variation within them, or that they might be diametrically opposed (Sorry, but if you are a conservative, you are way fucking closer to a National Socialist or a fascist on the political spectrum than I am, dingus). Prepare for a big fuck all barrage of brilliant criticisms of the shit you don’t believe in but they think you do. And who knows. They might actually get around to talking shit about single-payer healthcare or food stamps or some other provision of the welfare state that you definitely support but is not an essential component of your being a socialist.
And as we well know, they have some really good material. I mean, REALLY good. I mean, come on: “It works on paper, but not in practice.” Dude. Fucking blew my mind!! I totally do not know what to say to that! You are an intellectual GIANT! I certainly cannot respond to that gem, being as solid and well-thought out as it is (that’s what she said… wait… what?). They also tend to bring up the following bullshit:
1) the Soviet Union, the atrocities of Stalin/Mao/whoever
2) European debt. Forget the fact that the United States is terribly indebted and has jack shit in the way of a welfare state to show for it.
3) the idea that you are being a hypocrite for buying things. Obviously, socialists are like religious ascetics. You don’t like money and you are not supposed to participate in the capitalist market economy that is imposed on us all, duh!
4) how it is so wrong to “steal” from the awesome, totally cool, super human rich people and give handouts to the moochers (because socialism is really about getting back at the cool kids and you are a jeal jeal hater of successful people),
5) how you suck because you don’t believe in private property, which (OF COURSE!) they take to mean you think everyone should be forced to share their shoes, and so on. This is perfect when you are eating some slop of American fast food. “You’re a socialist huh? So you are gonna give me your pizza because you don’t believe in property and that we should share everything!”
So, instead of defending what you do believe, you spend the next several hours explaining what you DO NOT believe. Like how there have been so many tendencies within socialism as there are so many tendencies within Christianity and you don’t care much for the Soviet Union. Sorry, those of you who do. I guess you find yourself explaining that the USSR was not a dystopian nightmare for most of its history, or that the United States in its history has obvious parallels in terms of atrocity and mass murder. It sucks because the entire conversation has nothing to do with what you believe and everything to do with what they think you believe. What they think you believe despite the fact that they have never made an honest effort to learn about the ideology that they hate so much. Despite your best efforts, by the end of the night, they will probably walk away from the entire conversation thinking the same patently fallacious shit, too.
Now, I am not trying to get at the idea that you should try to “pass” for a normal person and never get into these conversations with people. People are always wearing their political beliefs on their sleeves when they are out socializing. Even the people who like to pretend that they do not have any politics do this. Once someone starts talking shit about how fucking awesomely responsible they are and how they believe so much in “personal responsibility,” which poor people unfortunately do not (that’s why they are poor!), your commie senses should be tingling. When they bump it up to the next level and make a crack about how people on foodstamps routinely trade their government assistance for Nike sneakers or how the homeless are totally out there “banking” on panhandling, you know exactly where the motherfucker is coming from. And while they can often get away with saying bullshit like that, they deserve to be called out on it. Liberals might step up. You can step up too and berate them for their reprehensible “common knowledge” beliefs.
But what I am getting at is that you should never expect too much to come from it. You cannot fall into the trap of thinking that once someone is exposed to your socialist awesomeness that they will walk away thinking that socialists are not so bad after all. Even if you are extremely polite and patient with the invariably nonsensical things they will say to you. You can either go about it too ways, if you are going to say anything.
1) Be totally unapologetic about it. Never confirm the outrageous things they will say about socialism, or make apologies for some dumbass Communist government because they did what they did for the “glory of socialism.” Don’t turn it into a confessional about how “socialism had its failures” but you are a socialist anyway because we might just get it right the second time around. That is what they want. And in both theory and practice socialism as a movement the world over has brought about tremendous advancements for the working class. You don’t have to be sorry about anything because some socialists somewhere did bad shit. The same is true of governments that protected the interests of the capitalist class (like, hey, the Nazis… or the American one for that matter). As with the historical progress towards bourgeois liberal democracy, the struggle to realize socialism on earth is going to be a long and arduous one. Along the way, there will be many defeats, mistakes, failures, tears and bloodshed. I am no Maoist, but one quote of Mao’s that I find to be really perceptive is “the revolution is not a dinner party.” It has been and will be rough and chaotic. If you are some sort of ex-Trotskyist Neo-Marxist like me, or a democratic socialist, make the comparison between the long history of Christianity and the socialist movement. Socialism was THE movement of the 20th Century. It has been one of the most powerful, sustained movements in the history of mankind, the first time, perhaps, that we realized that the future is OURS to create. Along the way, there have been numerous splits and schisms, numerous tendencies within the socialist movement existing side by side with one another and fighting for a better future in different ways. I am not taking shit for what other socialists did, and I highly oppose the idea that socialist struggle “inevitably” leads to one thing or another. Nothing is inevitable. If the enemies of socialism fairly applied the same standard to their own ideological heritage, they would have more explaining to do than us.
2) Learn how to talk to people. I never could do this very well. Sometimes I think I am great at it, other times I stutter like a fool and cannot overcome my issues with shyness. I am sure that I have appeared offensive or like I am leading someone on (during those brief periods when I was not in a serious relationship). What is worse, it just seems totally random whether it will be easy for me to make a connection with someone in a social situation or not. A lot of it, however, seems to be figuring out what makes someone click and going from there. Some time back, a friend of mine who is a complete, unapologetic, hardcore, orthodox Marxist-Leninist and I were at a bar drinking. A couple sat next to us and we ended up talking to them for whatever reason, maybe they overheard some political statement that one of us made. The guy was a small business owner and a conservative. Usually not the easiest person to have a political discussion with when you are on the left. Being in one of my moments, I let him know of my socialist politics, perhaps as a response to something derogatory that was said about socialism. I came off as pretty idealistic to him. My friend, fortunately, jumped in was able to really get this guy to agree with or take seriously the points that he was making from a socialist perspective. The guy brings up small business, my friend had something to say for the small businessman. The guy brings up economic inefficiencies, my friend could let him know that he took him seriously while proposing an alternative to capitalist planning. Not only did my friend have a response for every argument the guy was making, he could relate the socialist point of view to him in a way that he could appreciate. There was very little of having to correct the conservative on the misunderstandings of socialist ideology because my friend avoided those “big issues” and honed-in on the obvious problems we have to day and how socialism is an answer to them. It went surprisingly well.
The stuff we hear about approaching non-socialists for purposes of recruitment and otherwise makes sense. Doing that well is something else entirely. Sometimes, I totally agree that you should call a reactionary motherfucker out and try the best you can to make a fool of him in front of everyone else. Other times, you need to be tactful about it, and it is something you learn with experience. As infuriating as it might be for you to be confronted with a totally one-sided condemnation of what you believe when you do not even believe that, you have to make the determination for when it is a good idea to do that and not. And if not, how you will go about it. It relies just as much on all those wonderful books you have read on socialist theory as it does pure and simple social skills.
61 Comments
Not recommended.
The idea that the elites “socialize” their losses and risks onto the taxpayers is an important one. I would encourage you to keep making that argument. I found little else of any value.
This assertion, “I am not taking shit for what other socialists did,” is dangerously wrong. You’re apparently ignorant of the way the Communist party in China uses “socialism,” as wage slavery to deliver wealth to the elites is unacceptable.
You wrote: ” It has been one of the most powerful, sustained movements in the history of mankind, the first time, perhaps, that we realized that the future is OURS to create.”
First, are you against women’s suffrage? What is “mankind?” Your thesaurus didn’t include the word, “humanity?”
Second, If you want to be taken seriously when you make such global statements, use a link to someone influential who supports your position.
Luke 12:48 imho is important: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” It doesn’t however, get you to the government owning the means of production. IMHO, it does get you to “welfare capitalism,” which I would encourage you to consider.
In the hands of a skilled writer, the occasional use of obscenity can help make a point.
Monopolies and oligopolies are the enemies of capitalism, competition, and innovation. The laws of Supply and DEMAND are like gravity. They explain economic relationships. We ignore them at our peril. The elites are seeking increasing ownership of energy, fresh water, and agriculture. IMHO, ownership of energy and agriculture has to be much more decentralized and diversified. IMHO, ownership of CLEAN fresh water has to extremely heavily regulated. There is no substitute for it.
Socialism “works,” in almost all families. “From each according to their ability, to each, according to their need. It also works well in groups that are like-minded, such as religious groups. The fact that it has not “worked” for a long period of time at the nation-state level is important.
If you want to argue for socialism, you have to explain how you plan to handle “private property.” As long as it remains truly private, you’re not really a “Socialist.”
Socialism is usually linked to people who have a feel for the heights humanity can reach. Unfortunately, those same people have not been sufficiently aware of the depths to which it can also plummet. Any economic system has to manage the full range of human experience, the good and the bad.
No.
Wikipedia:
You are confusing Socialism with Communism. Socialism does not eliminate “Private Property”.
At the nation-state level, can you show me an example of where “Socialism,” does not de-evolve into Communism?
Then, by all means! Let’s put all the Christians (and I do mean all of them — if we are going to smother socialists in blanket criticisms, then let’s be fair) on trial for the Albigensian Crusade, the Spanish Inquisition, and the atrocities committed by Christians during the Thirty Years’ War. To name a few. Christians (goddess, especially those who quote Luke 12:48!) are all dangerously ignorant of the way the belief in Jesus has been used to justify torture and mass murder, and so they all ought to renounce their faith at once.
I haven’t even started on the true believers in money, the capitalists, and the way their faith was used to promote (for instance) the 19th century genocide in the Belgian Congo, or Rios Montt’s genocide in Guatemala, among other places.
The idea argued by both the author and myself is simple: what’s good for one group is good for another. If you’re willing to use attacks on Mao against people who say they’re “socialists,” what’s your defense against your own group’s atrocities?
Let’s put the correct pseudo-liberals on trial, too, for their support for the atrocities of the Obama administration. This kind of verbal nitpicking smacks of pseudo-liberalism. It’s time for folks who use “guilt by association” arguments to take responsibility for their group’s actions!
**cough** Monopolies and oligopolies are the PRODUCTS of capitalism, competition, and innovation — but I suppose a civilized response here would be in the form of a question. If capitalism has produced monopolies and oligopolies, can we just take the parts of capitalism we like and discard the parts we don’t like?
The human race has been around for 200,000 years and the “laws of supply and demand” have only been the basis for economy for maybe 500 of those years.
So either “supply and demand” are eternal, or they are transitory phases of historical societies, most specifically historical societies in which concepts such as money and property are codified in certain ways.
The idea of the “nation-state level” is also a transitory phase of history — specifically, after the age of empires and nomads. What appears to be superceding the “nation-state level” at the present moment, moreover, is the era of global governance. Now, at present the institutions of global governance are instruments of the global capitalist system — but one thing that hasn’t been tried yet is global governance for socialism.
Please do not attack other members of MyFDL. -MyFDL Editor
I’m sure that the next time you admit to any weakness in your diaries, plenty of people will remember this remark of yours and remind you of it.
Again, you miss the point. Is that willfully? My point is about Relevance.
Just what is going on here? There’s a lot of incoherent twaddle in this post, some invective, and no end point whatsoever about getting from some sort of “here” to some sort of “there.”
And coming out of the mouth of a so-called Lucius Junius, Republican and King Killer Extra-Ordinaire, it’s even more absurd.
Loved the piece and highly recommended. Don’t listen to the jam-tarts. Don’t cleanse the writing of saucy language. If you do you will start sounding like these drones.
You may not be great at talking to people but you write with a lot of colorful insight. Keep it up and keep ‘em coming, though perhaps a tad shorter. Thanks.
L O L !
Is being proactive beneath you?
Why no, not at all.
In fact, do you have programming skills? In particular data transformation? If you do I would completely welcome your help in a particular pet project of mine, wherein we (me and 2 others) are working on transforming the data in http://stations.fcc.gov/developer/
‘Cause we’d like to expose money/the monied groups in US Elections.
The problem is in the formatting of the PDFs as some are pictures, some are documents, and scraping the data out of them into some sort of coherent database is, well, daunting.
And that’s the sort of thing I like. Data driven analysis, data driven decision making, data driven understanding vs. drivel-driven screed about Things To Do.
Because pointing people to indisputable facts is superior to mere scribbling in my opinion.
‘This assertion, “I am not taking shit for what other socialists did,” is dangerously wrong. You’re apparently ignorant of the way the Communist party in China uses “socialism,” as wage slavery to deliver wealth to the elites is unacceptable.’
I don’t think you quite understand what I am saying. I am not a Chinese Communist Party member. I criticize the Chinese Communist Party frequently. But I am not going to do a mea culpa because of what the Chinese Communists have done. There have been numerous traditions within socialism, and I do not have to make any apologies for what was done by other socialists. That would be like putting a Mennonite on the spot for what the Catholic Church did during the Inquisition or something equally as stupid. The moment liberals make apologies for the fascism that arose out of a last-ditch effort to defend the capitalism that gave rise to liberalism, slavery, the famines in China before a Communist government came to power, and treat it as fundamental criticisms of capitalism or liberalism, then maybe I will take you up on that.
‘First, are you against women’s suffrage? What is “mankind?” Your thesaurus didn’t include the word, “humanity?”’
You got me there, buddy. Because I used the word “mankind,” I do not believe that woman should have the right to vote. Found me out! Sorry, next time I will alternate between using “he” and “she.” Maybe I will invoke the pronoun “sie.” Do you do that, by the way? Or do you want to strip women of the right to vote?
‘Second, If you want to be taken seriously when you make such global statements, use a link to someone influential who supports your position.’
Uh, sorry I did not cite my sources according to the Chicago Manual of Style. This was not intended to be a research paper. It was intended to be humorous rant. My bad!
‘Luke 12:48 imho is important: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” It doesn’t however, get you to the government owning the means of production. IMHO, it does get you to “welfare capitalism,” which I would encourage you to consider.’
Oh, you mean the welfare capitalism that was created by socialist movements around the world and the welfare capitalism that is being gutted because the ruling class continues to be capitalist? Oh, yeah, I will consider that whole-heartedly.
Any socialist will tell you that we do not merely want “the government” to own the means of production, if they even want such a thing (Newsflash, not all of them do!). The kind of government that you have in place matters a lot. I would not consider this government coming in and taking control of the means of production to be socialism, or even a government such as what existed in the USSR.
“In the hands of a skilled writer, the occasional use of obscenity can help make a point.”
I think I made my point to those who understand. You should be thanking me for throwing my obscenity-laden pearls before swine.
‘Monopolies and oligopolies are the enemies of capitalism, competition, and innovation. The laws of Supply and DEMAND are like gravity. They explain economic relationships. We ignore them at our peril. The elites are seeking increasing ownership of energy, fresh water, and agriculture. IMHO, ownership of energy and agriculture has to be much more decentralized and diversified. IMHO, ownership of CLEAN fresh water has to extremely heavily regulated. There is no substitute for it.’
Seriously? I am seriously reading this? I think cassiodorus trashed this enough for me, and his post shows how socialists know better than to consider these things to be the “enemies of capitalism” when capitalism inevitably leads to them when left to its own devices. And, you know, when capitalists want nothing less than this. Imagine that: capitalists are the greatest enemies of capitalism! Yeah, liberals really have their heads on straight with that one.
Then try being helpful in discussions, which means not offering unconstructive criticism.
You might think my offerings “unconstructive.” I don’t.
Further, I’ve been at this a long time. Only recently, as in a couple years, armed with a camera to record the actual “proactivity” you so desire.
Like here.
Then let’s examine your post #8 above, and see how “proactive” and “constructive” it really is.
Let’s focus especially upon this sentence:
So what exactly is Luciusjunius supposed to say to this: “Yes of course I agree with you — I was just babbling incoherent twaddle because I’m stupid. Thank you for the constructive criticism”?
Oh yeah, you can expect that response. Is that the response YOU give when other people tell you that you’re babbling incoherent twaddle?
More succinctly: a CONSTRUCTIVE piece of advice would be an offering whereby the piece of writing could be IMPROVED, by someone whose point of view ISN’T dismissive. You didn’t meet that standard. Try again.
More succinctly:
The Author can certainly reply, him/herself, and make his/her point him/herself.
Or are you saying it’s my duty NOT to be skeptical of the author?
Why shouldn’t I be skeptical, of anybody, without proof, or in the least their own participation?
You just offered a bunch of dismissive, unconstructive criticism, and then you refused to admit that that’s what you did even when I pointed it out to you.
Please avoid personal attacks on MyFDL. -MyFDL Editor
You do fabulous work, Kelly.
PW (who barely mastered BASIC and then forgot it and whose bowels clench at the thought of machine language)
Your straw is so burnable.
I don’t actually care what you think of my responses, which I have rebutted factually. You have rebutted with the sum of nothing, and cannot refute what I have shown by deed, and written.
Let Lucius Junius respond.
Thank you Ma’am. I am the skeptic of skeptics.
I believe what I see, not the “see” of others. I demand proof.
I’m also fascinated by the fact that there aren’t any, you know, links by the dead Romans to anything they’ve actually DONE.
Why is that?
I don’t know what I am supposed to say to you, Kelly. You suck? I mean, that is pretty much all I got from you. Sure, yeah, you used more words… but that was basically it.
As for what we have done… what do you even mean by that? What have YOU done? And why does that matter? I did not know we had to note our credentials here.
Having learned of the other Roman’s background, I know he has “done” a lot. I think it would be beneath him to have to vouch for his academic or activist credentials. Really, who gives a fuck?
Here: I am maddeningly frustrated by the difficulties in explaining my political position to a population of wildly misled and happily confused characters.
There: A mode of discourse that enables me to reach these aforementioned people and makes my position more accurately understood and with some facts, empathy and good fortune, change some minds.
Mr. Canfield. Persuasion, sir, is the heart of the matter.
People reach conclusions via different avenues.
If a statistics-driven presentation of hard data is what works for you, fabulous. I fully appreciate the value of a data driven argument. But remember, there is a reason it is not popular at dinner parties.
Any trial lawyer understands that facts alone rarely convince the jury. Dialecticians from antiquity have understood the value of empathy, humor, sadness, frustration, anger, tranquillity, certitude – indeed a smorgasborg of emotions that are used to flavor the argument (the facts we hope) and pull the audience in.
Orators from Ghandi to Hitler to MLK have understood this and if you want to persuade multitudes to your point of view rather than a handful of people outside a Senator’s office it might be well not to ignore these precepts.
Lucius is using humor and empathy in this piece, but I don’t think the intention was to convince us FDL’ers of anything. We’re the choir. He (she) seemed simply trying to be funny while relating what was learned along the way in the eternal struggle to simply be understood.
I’m not sure why you chose to attack in such a personal manner. Perhaps there are old grudges, at work here. If so, drop them. Statistically, they have been shown to be counterproductive in the end.
I really enjoyed this. Those being critical just don’t get it. They can’t see it the same way socialists do.
And my favorite part is that, right on cue, these folks stick their vacillating heads up:
Is it possible to be a Socialist if no one else is? Or more specifically, is it possible to be a Socialist in the US? One can be a Capitalist because there is a critical mass of other Capitalists. One can be a Protestant because all that is required is a Bible.
Hey luciusjunius, I liked your rant, both the style and the content, so much that I recommended it.
Good points all, GDC707.
However, I might add that persuasion is not always the goal. Occasionally you run into someone who seems to get their rocks off being abusive and hostile.
Yes.
United Kingdom, 1964 to 1970 under Prime Minister Harold Wilson.
and possibly France, Germany & Ital in the same period.
Australia Now, Today.
I enjoyed this post, and it inspired me to watch this section of a Wolff lecture about the creation of the political system in the USSR. Missing Marx in the Morning…
On a different trajectory, the Socialist-Communist coalition in Norway has made it the richest country per capita in the world.
Great diary Lucius, you have drawn out the Unreconstructed Liberals among us and tweaked their ire. When a conservative discovers you are a Socialist they grab their guns and Bibles, when a Liberal discovers you are a Socialist they show their reactionary tendencies and go for the clean knife thrust in the back.
I prefer to bypass this level of discourse and go for the Nuclear Option by claiming to be an Anarchist. Everyone takes a step back when they hear Anarchist. While Socialism disturbs them it is not the threat it once was, see Europe’s so called Socialists, while Anarchism causes pants wetting and images of fecal matter hitting the rotary impeller.
Thank you, Synoia. I came late to this party, and even sober I was dreading what horrible things I might say to Boo once I started. I hate to leave a party with my wife looking at me as if I just run full tilt into a wall and thinking Jesus, Ragg, why the hell did you do that? You could have just ignored him, you know.
I find it more than curious that All The Usual Suspect come out for this post, one by someone who just registered.
Not buying this.
Lucius Junius seems no more ridiculous than RaggMopp to me. I’m from Texas (Deep East Texas BTW) and I am not only deeply sympathetic to your rant, I was very entertained by it. Apparently your detractors above totally missed you point.
“…I will hear the moment someone “outs” me by pointing at me and going “That guy’s a commie!” like I am a fucking unicorn (and having lived in Texas for most of my life, I might as well be. God, don’t I know that. Thank God nobody has ever called me a commie, but I guess calling me an atheist is tantamount to it in most of my neighbors minds.
I’m sure it would have added nothing to your story to mention that you must be talking to some very civilized Texans. Batshit crazy is only slightly worse than ignorant as a post as long as it’s confined to talking. Either one beats the hell out of fisticuffs in the street much less gun fighting over the punchbowl. Each being a very real concern in Nacogdoches County, Texas.
Thnaks for the laughs.
After registering, how long do you suppose someone should sit on their hands before they post?
Obviously you don’t prefer what you claim to prefer or you would have refrained from including your entire comment @31. I read the diaries that I have time to read and don’t come here to be tweaked into expressing any ire, nor do I come here to congratulate someone else for seemingly doing so.
Berating people’s general intelligence by using worn out, largely undefinable and overly stereotypical labeling, seemingly aimed only at provoking further ire or brown-nosing another commenter or simply disrupting and distracting everyone else from civil discourse about the topic at hand is not welcome nor desired as I try to learn from each diary that I do have time to read.
‘Suspects’? Oh, dear, demi.
“At the nation-state level, can you show me an example of where “Socialism,” does not de-evolve into Communism?”
Boo, I think maybe we should try that shoe on the other foot. Can you show me an example of where socialism has de-evolve(d)(sic) into communism? Maybe a better question would be, can you show me an example of communism? Give you a hint: Not the Soviet Union (aka the Russian empire) nor the People’s Republic of Han, but a little island 70 miles from Florida just might qualify.
Gosh Non, I think wayoutwest @#31 was trying to add to the general air of comical ranting that the original post set. Yours @#36 doesn’t make me grin.
I would agree that others have no business taking up you precious time with humorous rants. I just can’t think how to ensure that never happens again.
Please limit your comments to debating other people’s views, rather than attacking other MyFDL members. -MyFDL Editor
Here’s the basic problem. In the American public’s mind, any kind of government bureaucracy=socialism.
Americans want to be free. They want to control their own lives and not have to conform to bureaucratic structures their entire lives. Winger propaganda plays into this bias.
But the reality is that what we know as freedom is dependent on governments and structure that provide prosperity, stability, and opportunity.
Too many leftists and liberals in the USA unconsciously buy into the idea that more government=good. But the original socialists did not share this conviction. For them government ownership of production was just a stepping stone toward community ownership and total individual freedom. They wanted government to eventually “wither away”.
If socialism means anything in the 21st century, it ought to mean
1) every individual deserves to be paid for the value of their labor.
2) every individual should have as much control over the conditions of their labor as practicable.
3) rational government requires cooperation, education and economic democracy rather then competition and environmental degradation.
4) private property ownership is only virtuous insofar as it benefits everyone
5) economic and military competition between nations and untrammeled growth of industry and population is not sustainable or rational.
6) every individual on this planet deserves to be treated with dignity.
Good thhought. My bad.
Yet corporate bureaucracy = freedom. It’s amazing.
I read through it thoroughly and came back again out of curiosity. Second reading and even with commenters saying others have missed the humor or the joke, I have not yet determined anything to be humorous in the diary. I have not even seen anything I would define as any rant in the piece, sorry. I have learned nothing about socialism in the piece, especially nothing about what the author may hold as his/her definition of such.
I have, however felt an overwhelming sense of the author generally dismissing “others,” in one way or another for imho, not possessing as superior an understanding of socialism as the one he/she thinks she/he obviously possesses and that in this diary, just didn’t seem humorous to me. I’m perfectly satisfied with not getting the point of the piece if there was supposed to be one. Maybe next time.
Exactly. Corporatism is in fact not freedom, and offers less freedom then many government bureaucracies (single-payer, for example…is much more efficient and gives the consumer way more choices then corporate health-care).
Alot of socialism is justifiable based on simple egotistical self-interest. Eg, it’s simply more rational and justiable. Alot of socialists make the rhetorical mistake that some kind of moral paradigm shift towards altruism and communalism is necessary, and that therefore they must argue AGAINST individualism and egoism. Wrong. All that is necessary is for people to recognize their own interests and act on them. Meaningful education is about empowering individuals to better their own lives and thus enrich their communities.
I love this rant. As a socialist who lived in Texas (albeit I had only reached the level of commie pinko at that point), it made me laugh out loud. However, I don’t think you should have been so cavalier about revealing that part of our agenda is to make people share their shoes. Now that it’s out, though, I suggest we explain that sharing the shoes that we’ve already chosen is preferable to having to wear those gray, government-issued shoes with the crepe soles that don’t come in half sizes.
I liked laughing with you, too, Your Socialist Awesomeness. ;o)
Well, I, too, liked the OP’s rant. I find some of the “you’re not a socialist if…” responses to be counterproductive.
I think of myself as a socialist. No one on this thread has captured my twisted little view of what that means. That’s just how it should be if we are to be independent thinkers.
In my little world (h/t Bob Ross), socialism must be first and foremost a political, not an economic, system. When we dive headlong into talking about labor and means of production and all the “textbook” stuff, I think we’ve buried the horse under the cart. We’ve probably buried the cart as well.
The basis of socialism, as I define it, has to be “equally shared power” (i.e. political power). Absent that, all the rest is mere theory (meorey?) Socialism, as in social, means “of the people”; Capitalism, as in money, means putting money ahead of people. Make this a battle over the welfare state or over government control and we’ve already lost.
In addressing those mired in capitalist delusion, I do not engage them in dead-end discussions about “sharing shoes” or government-run corporations or the welfare state. Rather, I focus on something that very few, in my experience, are willing to argue against. I ask them whether those who are wealthy or who have been economically successful should have a greater voice in determining national, state or local policies. Even the die-hard,market-driven types are not comfortable extolling capitalism’s virtues to this extent.
When I talk about socialism, I talk about human empowerment. I talk not about economic equality but about political equality. The trap, here, is that ultimately, capitalists cannot successfully defend the undemocratic, perversion of the democratic ideal that capitalism’s inevitable extreme concentration of wealth produces. The tiny crack in the dam occurs when capitalists acknowledge that capitalism always has and always will produce a class-driven system not just in the economic sphere but in the political sphere as well. And, once the dam leaks, it’s not long before the whole thing collapses.
Socialism’s cry, if it is to advance, must be a call for political equality before any theoretical vision for economic restructuring should be promoted. To fail to see this will have the masses running away from you and hiding their shoes.
If readers here want to see where 21st Century Socialism is working and resisting US hegemony just look South Of The Border. While we sit on the sidelines and await austerity Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia and others are enjoying some success, with many challenges, from their choice of Socialism.
Since we enjoyed the fruits of Capitalism for so long by exploiting other countries we may have to taste the bitter fruit of austerity and exploitation for some time before we’re ready or deserve a chance to enjoy Socialism.
Americans want a free ride (the other guy pays). When they discover that the othe guy want a fair deal its call socialism.
The Boston Tea partiers come to mind.
The taxes were to pay for Soldiers to protect the colonists on their westward expansion. The colonists was a free ride on the Military costs of westward expansion, at the expense of the crown.
The British East India Company believed it should be exempt for pay these taxes. The colonists resented this unequal taxation. Rightly so.
Both parties were wrong. The taxes were always paid by the citizen, and companies, then and now, act a tax collectors and pass the collections to the government.
See wayoutwest @#40. Since your opinions have been declared sacrosanct, I decline to reply.
Perhaps, at least, I could offer a definition of socialism; since Lucias Junius has so absymally failed to do so:
Socialism is anything that the MSM, starting with Faux News, deems to be in contradiction to the mythical magic of the market place. Suppy and Demand being an especially legendary hero.
He presumes infinite independent sellers and infinite well informed buyers as the basis of his myth. He has never seen anything that resembles that, and you have never even smelled anything like it. He is greatly relieved.
Amen.
Highly recommended. Extra props for the constructivist avatar.
Why do you say that?
I thought Nonquixote’s comment was very honest and humble.
What about his comment makes it sacrosanct?
And, why say you won’t reply, when actually you did?
Welcome to the ‘Lake, Lucius Junius. Enjoyed thoroughly your rant and the subsequent pearl-clutching. Pass the popcorn. Heartily rec’d.
I second HotFlash’s welcome, luciusjunius. I confess that I recommended this quite interesting post of yours early this morning and now find that it has garnered a number of very interesting and most revealing responses, even beyond the early ones …
Looking forward, I most assuredly am therefore, to your posts in future as you seem to possess the valuable gift of controversial perspective, stimulating and invigorating others, and I always appreciate those who may do so without resort to mindless invective or lurid false argument.
It seems, to me, that your intent was honestly humorous, educational, and sufficiently self-deprecating to suggest that any curmudgeonly aspects it may be accused of possessing must, of a certainty, appeal quite favorably to mine own wee, rotten heart and twisted sensibilities.
Most well done.
;~DW
Enjoyable rant. It just went on a while so I scanned the second half.
Recommended.
Thanks but please don’t bother. I wouldn’t want you to have to experience an awkward moment explaining something to someone it seems you have already deemed a, “typical American,” with those, “typical beliefs,” and whom you seem to have already concluded doesn’t have a fucking clue about socialism, anyway.
It is really quite simple to understand my comment at 44. I for one couldn’t be made to feel awkwardness in any sense, if confronted by people who I had presumed to know, “jack-shit as in they have no fucking clue,” about whatever the subject or associated label they were attempting to apply to me.
Alternative 3) which may simply have been overlooked by the author is, “in one ear and out the other,” and walk away and save one’s energy and effort for a potentially more rewarding task than putting up with nitwits or suffering fools. Easy peasy, no fuss, no muss, no awkward feeling.
-)
Same as it ever was.
Did you look at wayoutwest@#40? He jumped me about my response to nonquixote @#36. I was a little confused, but I figured I’d better not mess with a MyFDL Editor: Ergo sacrosanct.
And I did not reply to his earlier, I just made a statement of my own. Or that’s the way I saw it. I think.
It’s OK, demi. I’m obviously out of my depth. It’s all much too subtle for me.
Hard to argue with alternative 3. Thanks