"Socialism" as a word
If Bernie keeps winning you're going to see more pieces like this:
No, Bernie Sanders, most voters aren't comfortable with socialism
Right, so we can't have Medicare for All or College for All or the Green New Deal because omigod Bernie Sanders used that word "socialism." So there ought to be an explanation -- not merely of what the word socialism means (Sanders can do that just fine, although not everyone agrees with his explanation) but also of the historical background that gives the term meaning.
Sure, the word "socialism" has a lot of baggage, and that baggage has become the basis for a lot of concern trolling of Bernie Sanders' campaign. "Sanders is unelectable because he uses that socialism word." Well, "socialism" has had baggage for quite some time now. Here's the British author George Orwell (1903-1950), in a book titled The Road to Wigan Pier, written in 1937, before the Cold War:
there is the horrible—the really disquieting—prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words “Socialism” and “Communism” draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, “Nature Cure” quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. (174)
Orwell goes over this social connotation of "socialism" in detail, since he was himself a convinced socialist. He argued that the ideas of socialism and of being a socialist can get completely lost in the vast quantity of associations anyone can make between socialism and the actual socialists, who turn out to be a bunch of rather marginal people. Or, as Orwell argued, "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents" (ibid.).
And then you have Chris Matthews, voicing the historic panic on MSNBC, which is that socialism equals the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, which equals the Gulag and the death camps. Of course, what appeared natural in April of 1961 looks silly in February of 2020, and so few people take Chris Matthews seriously today. I suppose the lesson to be learned from Chris Matthews is that there are still a few individuals around who are not ready to discuss the word "socialism" with any degree of reasonableness.
So far we've looked at ridiculous word games people can play with the word "socialism." So what of "socialism"? What's in a name? Written pieces too numerous to mention will tell you that what Bernie Sanders means by "socialism" is actually social democracy. To argue thusly is to say that social democracy is not socialism, but instead a system in which the government provides social benefits to a public while the means of production remain in private hands. Socialism, these same people insist, is PUBLIC control/ ownership of the means of production. It's not what Bernie Sanders is proposing. So at least these critics of Bernie Sanders, most of them friendly critics, are trying to be precise about what they think "socialism" means. (Social democracy, it should be pointed out, is better than what we've got now. Who cares what it's called?)
However, such critics point out, quite validly, one problem with defining "socialism." Another problem with defining "socialism" is that, even when one tries to be precise about "socialism," one's argument can only go so far. How is the public to control/ own the means of production? Some folks just can't conceive of a public -- yeah, they just don't see it AT ALL --and so they think the public is the government. But, no, the public is not the government, not at all. But how does the government become the public? There was this concept of the "withering away of the state," back in the 19th century, but, big problem, the state appears to have cemented itself in place in the 20th century through its possession of nuclear weapons. So we're clearly going to need something more ideal than the Cold War balance of terror if we are to imagine a "socialism" that fits that precise definition.
One recalls that, before and during the Cold War, there was a married couple, Will and Ariel Durant, who put forth these breezy and biographically-minded volumes of ancient, Medieval, and early Modern history -- The Story of Civilization. There were eleven volumes in all, and I used to own all of them but water damage destroyed my copies. Some anonymous author in Wikipedia posted that "The Story of Civilization is the most successful historiographical series in history. It has been said that the series 'put Simon & Schuster on the map' as a publishing house."
Anyway, the Durants argue their definition of "socialism" in a separate book titled "The Lessons of History," in which they use the term "socialism" to describe any sort of government-sponsored shaping of the economy, even if it happened a long, long time ago. So, for instance, we are told in this book that
Rome had its socialist interlude under Diocletian. Faced with increasing poverty and restlessness among the masses, and with imminent danger of barbarian invasion, he issued in AD 301 an Edictum de pretiis, which denounced monopolists for keeping goods from the market to raise prices, and set maximum prices and wages for all important articles and services. Extensive public works were undertaken to put the unemployed to work, and food was distributed gratis, or at reduced prices, to the poor. The government, which already owned most mines, quarries, and salt deposits -- brought nearly all major industries and guilds under detailed control. (60)
Only if you accept a definition of socialism as government control over the economy does the Will and Ariel Durant idea of Diocletian as a socialist make sense. Diocletian was an autocrat, ruling the later Roman Empire from the year 284 to the year 305 of our calendar, and so there was no sense that he represented any sort of public. He wore a purple cloak and so you kissed his feet and did what he said if you valued your life. So yeah the Will and Ariel Durant version of "socialism" is a bit over-broad. But you can see when you read them that we are back to the problem of "we can define socialism in a lot of different ways."
The catch, then, if we are to accept the definition of socialism as public ownership and control over the means of production, is to suggest a sense in which "the public," organized however we please, can own the means of production. In truth this remains an ideal, approximated in various ways, but only approximated. But there have nonetheless been attempts to name and describe the real thing. So for instance you have Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel's idea of participatory economics, so named because at Albert and Hahnel's level of reasoning the term "socialism" just looks too vague. The Wikipedia entry characterizes participatory economics as follows:
The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, workers' self-management, efficiency (defined as accomplishing goals without wasting valued assets) and sustainability. The institutions of parecon include workers' and consumers' councils utilizing self-managerial methods for decision-making, balanced job complexes, remuneration based on individual effort, and wide participatory planning.
Sounds good to me!
To conclude:
What it looks like, at this point, is that actual socialism is quite possible, though the term "socialism" is probably doomed. The socialism term is probably doomed because invoking socialism prompts endless discussions of what socialism is, of who supports it, of how we can do it, and of why we need it. Not to worry -- we'll find another term. Today it looks like the primary positive function of the term "socialism" is to argue that the fire departments, the Post Office, the libraries, and the public schools count as "socialism" and that fools who hate socialism also hate the fire department, the Post Office, the libraries, and the public schools. I don't see that argument staying cogent forever. Anyone who isn't maliciously greedy wants to see those services in public hands.
Comments
I think
the only ones afraid of Sanders because of the "socialism" moniker are the 65+ aged voters.
To them, the red scare is still strong. Yet I know many in that group that understand it's a scare tactic.
It wont work with the youth and those who understand that we have socialism now. It's just primarily used by the 1% and folks are getting tired of it.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Good essay.
Socialism is only common sense in a world that is rapidly becoming unsustainable.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
In other words --
folks who like their "socialist" Medicare and Social Security just fine, but who don't like "socialism."
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Much better explanation
than what I gave.
I live to learn.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
"Keep your government's hands off my Medicare!"
Morans. The only thing that changes is how it's paid for. No more middlemen skimming off profits for no reason.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
The reality
are the same individuals I knew in the 1960s that didn't like those of us that are not afraid of Sanders today. Saying you know many who (fill in the blank), is way too condescending.
Reality Check: did what I just write make sense to anyone ?! Damn, my head is about to explode.
Somehow - someway we need to distinguish the "shit head" contingent of the 65+ from the rest of us, AND we are not just some of them! I don't care which demographic you pick there are plenty of individuals in that demographic that will cheerfully stab you in the back if they think it will get them closer to being rich, powerful, or whatever.
RIP
talking bout my gen, gen, generation
all us medicare eligible individuals
(that I know) are full on Bernie or
Tulsi. This is why I don't trust polls
or generalizations. It just does not
add up. Question memes. Get a
convince before spreading p'ganders
question everything
Makes perfect sense.
My choice of words may have been wrong but I still believe the 65+ will be the hardest nut for Bernie to crack even though he is one of them.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I think the 65+
crowd are the same people that were a problem in the 50s and 60s and they will be difficult if not impossible to convince. Far too many were able to get through the social upheaval without dealing with the social upheaval. I know these people, they are in my family, they are my colleagues, they are in all walks of life … but most important … they do not, in any real way, define the "boomer" generation.
I have recently completed 60 years in the classroom and defining "each generation" as fundamentally unique is futile and a tremendous waste of time.
Another case in point: AOC and the squad do not define their particular generation. I wish they did, but I know better. They will face some of the same challenges over the next few years as we all faced in our time. The process never stops, the only hope is for us to shift the landscape to make it as easy as possible to "get the ball rolling" in the right direction.
RIP
Please stop with the generalization.
I am 67 and have been a Bernie supporter for more years than you have been on the earth. Now doesn't that sound stupid? So does saying that those 65+ don't want Sanders. Stop generalizing. If you want to say which 65+, get the statistic and be factual.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I never said they didn't want Sanders.
I said that many of our generation fear the word socialism as much as communism.
It's a fear that was ingrained in many at an early age and many have never outgrown it. Or as PriceRip put it:
No offense was intended.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Well, I'm seeing that
thrown around here and on other sites and this is the only place I comment. I've generalized, too - and know it is not fair because there are always exceptions. I don't know you, so I don't know how old you are, nor the intent of your comment. The internet is like that and many people hide behind their keyboards.
People have had enough - even the 65+ group. Just want that acknowledged by the site as a whole.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I'm sure
you hate as much as me being classified as a "Boomer". Eh. Maybe not.
Thanks for understanding that no degradation of any generational class was meant.
I love all ages.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Screw the Poor and Screw the Middle Class. Who Needs Health
care anyway?
If you were a decent human being you would have enough money to feed and house yourself and pay for overpriced medical care and mortgage your future for an education.
Screw the 50% of Americans who can't compete with Jeff Bezos in accruing wealth. If there is one thing I know it is that American Citizens are worthless and deserve no help. We have to reserve the help for the people who matter. You know, those people who hire an army of accountants to escape their taxes.
Nobody should pay their fair share. You need to earn the right to cheat on your taxes.
We have to reserve socialism for the TAX CHEATS.
Accept FRAUD because the oligarchs are better than you.
Wealthy people have earned the right to ABUSE you.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
It's really amazing --
how they've managed to confuse people into not expecting anything meaningful in return for their tax dollars.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
And How They Have Taught People That It Is Laudable to
escape your taxes, but only if you're wealthy. I mean, that's the wealthy's job...
I do think there is some legs to that angle, it's installed, might as well use it.
The job of the wealthy is to screw the poor. To find creative new ways of taking our money and to steal from the State is just good business. It's just the way of things.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I would characterize this idea as
antisocial-ist.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
My definition
Socialism happens when a country is run for the good of the people, not the rich and powerful, and may use tools like the free market and private capital, but always regulates them to guarantee that the outcome produces economic and social justice and preserves a truly democratic form of government.
Likewise:
Fascism happens when there exists a close partnership between rich and powerful interests and the government. (Mussolini's definition) The prime goal of the government is to assist the interests of the corporations and to favor them exclusively over the economic and social interests of the people, to provide resources and labor at the cheapest prices and to protect their markets by whatever means necessary.
Where is the US on this scale? And where do you think the people would like the country to be? That's why Bernie is getting such a resoundingly positive response and why the establishment is running scared.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
I hope some at c99p are listening to you.
And there's an idea
for Dems, for the Bernie campaign going into the fall: if Trump and his goons start tossing around the S word and especially the C word, throw the F word right back at them.
Yes, briefly explain what socialism really is, how it already operates in our country although we don't call it by socialism, then pivot from defense to going on the attack about Trump and his fascist tendencies. America's Wannabe Mussolini.
Dems won't win by always playing defense, though they prefer to do just that. Make the other guy pay, let him feel the sting and be forced to play defense.
Damn, this is it. Perfectly said,
. This is what Bernie should be saying right now. He needs to head off the red-scare crappadoodle before it gets any thicker.
How can this excellent, very clear, statement of fact be brought to Bernie's attention? Email won't reach him, Twitter may be a bit better ... probably the best bet is seeing that it gets to those who are close to him, or spreading it around so that people are talking about it, or bringing it to the attention of popular talking heads in the media, maybe starting with our crowd -- Kyle, Jimmy D., Tim Black, Niko House, Aaron Mate & Max Blumenthal, Krystal & Saagar, TYT (maybe although I don't fully trust tyt), etc.
I think you stated it perfectly, Wizard, and we should not let your words scroll down and fade away into this or any website.
Anyone have other ideas for sharing Wizard's definition?
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
Agreed
If anyone here knows how to get this to Bernie, or his team please go ahead and do it. I will try emailing it to Bernie. I was able to get a response from his staff about 5 months ago and I got real answers to my questions. Now it might be much more difficult. I'll try some other names, too. Thanks.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
You can try tweeting
to his speechwriter David Sirota on Twitter. He did excellent work a few weeks ago laying out Biden's sorry past record on SS/Medicare, and what he tweeted got picked up, by Bernie and in the media.
Similar for Bernie's press sec'y, Briahna Joy Gray, on Twitter..
Also try Twitter with Krystal Ball, a major Bernie backer in the media. If you tweet your comments a time or two, likely she will see it and maybe go with it on her Rising show, where it will get further exposure.
My best suggestions at this hour on how to get the candidate's attention in a fairly timely fashion. Emails just get lost in the shuffle.
And while you're at it
Tell him to STFU with the Russia Russia shit too.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
"Socialism", what about "Taxes" is a word.
What sort of idiot thinks taxes pay for anything. How many years have you been living under a rock to actually such a STUPID thing.
The 1% know very well what taxes are for, and they are very happy the 99% are so very caught up in screwing each other as the regulators, managers, and yes the 1% keep adjusting the rules to make it all so very nice at the top.
They (the 1%) are terrified we (the 99%) will suddenly "get it" and re-install the regulatory subroutine in the program. They know, and most of the great unwashed just keep on being ignorant.
RIP
Their money- and election-rigging power
resides in the same electronic hardware first used to create the results the unaccountable, secure corporate front offices use on their employees.
This goes back at least to the '80s, when I saw the firm I worked for change from allowing a reaistic length of time to do a project like the (never before available in book form) Los Angeles City and County Code to an arbitrary number of pages per hour.
Or to the smiling, nicely dressed pairs of youngish IBM guys I saw in the New York neighborhood where I worked.
Sometimes it helps to share the facts --
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-i...
The best years for the middle class of this country were when the top marginal income tax rate was 70% or above. Reagan, with his "trickle down economics," took it below and it has never risen as high since. Within a few years, the homeless rate rose significantly enough to appear on the streets, unions died, single-job supported middle and lower class households disappeared, and the middle class itself started shrinking.
Now the mass media has people fooled into thinking that "taxes" are the primary cause of their economic problems.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
The dispensation of the post-World-War-II period
allowed for an economic expansion that will probably never be duplicated in the history of capitalism. You had the expansion of the Green Revolution, air travel, the Interstate system, the college and university systems, television, computers, chemicals, and the economic expansion of California as the masses moved westward. Also, money was pegged to gold (the "gold standard") in such a way that growth had to occur in order to validate the expanding money supply (while confiscated Nazi gold allowed the US to be the primary economic hegemon within such a scheme). A lot of this development was unable to contribute to the corporate profit rate by the Seventies, simply because productive capitalism could only be milked by profit-seekers so far.
With excessive spending on Vietnam, it was already clear that the scheme had to change. In 1968 the US declared that it would not be able to meet its gold standard commitments, and in 1971 Nixon declared the gold standard null and void. In 1973, with the founding of the Trilateral Commission, the new economic order was put in place, loosely imagined as "dollar hegemony" and "neoliberalism." The US government was to be the guarantor of the corporate profit rate by printing lots of dollars (which were to find their way into assets of vastly inflated value and gamed by speculators), while the well-being of the non-investing masses was to be slowly thrown overboard. This was the economic order still in place today.
Reagan was the President deemed most appropriate for the transition to neoliberalism; Carter merely the Johnny-Come-Lately to the neoliberal party. The "incubator regime" for the new order was the dictatorship of the junta headed by Augusto Pinochet in Chile, begun on the original September 11th -- September 11th, 1973.
Two important references: Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism and Philip Mirowski's Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To Waste.
The "income tax rates" thing appears as a sort of side effect of all that other activity. Of course the tax rates went down under Reagan; that was his role.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Yep
This is the core of the historical (evidentiary) component of my discussion. My approach to the topic follows a very different "walk in the woods" path.
The sad truth is that most people refuse to actually ever understand that economic systems are social constructs, and as such: Economic Systems are value free until decisions during and following implementation embodying Society's values define the values of the economic system.
People that de facto label "Capitalism" as bad, good, or … are not people that have any meaningful thing to say to me. Oh, be aware, I lived in abject poverty during the 1950s and 1960s, so I learned how economics really functioned from the bottom of the abyss. This is not a perspective I would wish upon anyone. Unfortunately too many are incapable of learning regardless of their life experiences, I have met those types and they will never learn.
As usual, Your mileage my vary.
RIP
Thanks for the reminder.
It took me a bit to find the graph I had been using.
As you point out context really drives the point home. I like the fact that the red and green curves are nearly "flat lined". That bit drives home the reality of how we (the lumpenproletariat) have been victimized. The real sad part is that so few understand even when they are told the truth.
I was very aware of the situation in the 1960s from personal experience, and then later as I watched the situation deteriorate for my younger colleagues. But, as I keep pointing out, various individuals with other points of view made it quite clear that I didn't know anything, so I should shut up and sit down.
Now maybe after all those years people will start addressing the real issues. I hope to live so long as to see that.
RIP
CNN, of course. They hate Bernie
That's the place where Joe Lockhart has a column pleading with Bloomberg to "take Bernie down".
Brian the liar Williams says he needs to be killed
No you don't get to say these words on national television. How many people's minds went to JFK or Bobby or Paul Wellstone?
Then there is this ex FBI agent telling us what his job used to be.
Come on you effing media goons people are tired of struggling while asshats like you guys protect the status quo evil bastards.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
First the snark...
What is Socialism? Simple, two or more "socialists" trying to define socialism...
Or a more serious note, Chris Hedges and Prof. Wolff on "Socialism"
[video:https://youtu.be/ikTZaMhWW1Y]
I truly love the Professor's explanation, in the first 50 seconds... YMMV
But if we dig deeper, according to Jacobin Mag., and Marx himself apparently...
When I was at KOS, I made an attempt to sell the idea, that in fact, it was Thomas Paine, who was the originator of "Democratic Socialism", and it's a totally American Idea. (Of course I'm not a "writer"...)
To me, and just mho, the four cornerstones of Democratic Socialism are found in the works of Thomas Paine.
"A long habit of not thinking something wrong, gives it the superficial appearance of being right." - Thomas Paine
Any of these resonate?
- Party over principals
- charging money for healthcare
- campaign contributions
- corporations
- billionaires
- capitalism with out including / acknowledging the externalities of it's production (air/water/soil pollution)
- wars of aggression / regime change
- Profit over people
- Lifetime appointments to the supreme court
I think y'all can see where I'm going with this...we need more Paine!
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
There are two definitions of socialism/ communism in Marx.
The first one, the one that everyone thinks of, is the system wherein the government is overthrown and replaced by a government which enacts, well, here's Marx's friend Friedrich Engels with a twelve-point program:
I'm choosing Engels, here, because I want to make the point that Marx and Engels had a utopia in mind and that they thought that the way of getting to here from there was commonsensical -- well, commonsensical for 1847 or 1848 (when the Communist Manifesto was written). Engels' Q and A expresses that point best. This sort of document was written as a sort of propaganda gesture, egging on the revolutionaries of that time. It's a platform, like Bernie or any of his opponents has a platform. But it's a very old platform, adapted to a very old time.
The second definition can be inferred from certain passages in the Grundrisse (which translates loosely as "foundation," though if you use Google's translator it comes off as "floorplans"), Capital, and the Critique of the Gotha Program. This is the "union of free producers," envisioning a society in which everyone produces something useful and everyone shares in the benefits.
In Capital Marx gets into an involved and sometimes quite convoluted discussion of "value" (and yeah they wrote that way back then -- just YOU try reading David Ricardo some time). The upshot of Marx's presentation was that, under capitalism, "value" becomes something that rules people, rather than people being able to choose and enact their own values. This was his analysis of capitalism.
We see this in the CV, the curriculum vitae, the "course of one's life" (in Latin). This is the document that gets you a job, and you need a job. The CV is a document illustrating how you've spent your entire life chasing value, and becoming value. Your shape is determined by value, in a form you only marginally get to choose. What Marx wanted to do, in Capital and elsewhere, is suggest that history was headed toward a form of society in which you got to control value, rather than it controlling you. This is the utopian vision which remains relevant to this day.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
By the way --
I highlighted the Grundrisse in my post above because, arguably, it's Marx's most authentic document even though for the most part it is a pain in the butt to read. Written in 1857-1858, it details Marx's whole plan for the critique of capitalism, of which only a portion was finished in Capital, and only a portion of Capital was finished enough for Marx to publish (the other two volumes coming out after his death courtesy of Engels).
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
But yes --
Wolff has it right.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
You derailed at "public".
Socialism is when the WORKERS control the means of production.
Ready for brain to explode?
Socialism is a form of capitalism.
Workers owning the grocery store are still operating within a capitalist market.
You heard Michael Bloomberg in the Nevada debate.
He worked hard for his billions. I guess he's a socialist, then, because he's into worker control of the means of production.
(Hint: the reason I chose the word PUBLIC was because the opposite of public is PRIVATE, which is definitely Bloomberg's domain.)
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Public means a very different thing than workers.
Especially in America.
the discussion here is way beyond my understanding
@ranting rooster
anything about socialism and communism and capitalism, but the sentence of Bloomberg saying he has worked hard for his billsions gives away the resulting racism and arrogance vis a vis those, who work hard and are still poor. It is really not hard to understand and see.
I am the dummy now, because at least in today's usage of the words, "Grundriss" is equal to a 'floorplan', which is not the same as 'Fundament'='Foundation'. You can have a floorplan which says nothing about the quality of the 'Fundament'='Foundation' of a building, house, or political theory.
What makes me laugh inside when reading through this thread is the fact that I ran around with a little red book about the fundamental ideas of 'Engels' in my backpack during the 1968 years without ever having read it. I guess I am not the only 99percenter dummy who was too lazy to read him.
The discussion between Heges and Wolff is excellent. If there were a transcript I would print it out and read it.
May be I should read up about Paine. Thanks for pointing me to it. I am not quite sure I directed this comment to ranting rooster or not, but it was meant also to him.
https://www.euronews.com/live
@Cassiodorus @mimi I grew up
I grew up spending a lot of time with my grand father who was into Thomas Paine. He would always quote TP. Obviously TP is not "perfect", but the root of his idea's are all heart (humane) and always attracted my mind by his simple use of observational reason.
I wrote in that diary at KOS
It was Thomas Paine who galvanized the British colonies to commit to revolution, and gave us the term "United States". He's also damn near been erased from American history, especially because of his pamphlet, Age of Reason. A scathing rebuke of Christianity.
Check out the following video from, Common Sense - Thomas Paine - Left Forum: Chris Hedges, Cornel West & Richard Wolff (2014) 2014
[video:https://youtu.be/KafxQqt-Ntw]
I especially enjoy Dr. West's comments on Thomas Paine. (Heck I just love Dr West...)
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Hard to tell how the word will used/abused/weaponized.
Socialism was certainly used as a dirty word and was basically an synoymn for communism. Establishment gopers and dems say the word will destroy Bernie. Hasn't so far. I thought AOC did one of the best cases for it when first elected. If Bernie and her keep doing that, they will take the word off the proverbial table as an attack against Sanders. Sanders may need create some political ads to counter act the theme of socialism=communism.
socialism
There are endless examples online of outrageous "socialism" for the rich and for corporations.
https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corpora...
A lot of people
already hate public schools (but many of them for the wrong reasons), so maybe that isn't a very good example.
This shit is bananas.
We won't talk about
The complete freedom to use our enormous military machine to conquer, pillage, and plunder sovereign countries around the globe for the benefit of American corporations. About 3/4 trillion dollars a year.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.