6 ms·
OK, I think I can die now, because, someone just called the military a socialistic culture, which is something I thought I'd never hear. This is even better tha
by edw 15y ago
OK, I think I can die now, because, someone just called the military a socialistic culture, which is something I thought I'd never hear. This is even better than my friend, who was educated at University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, believing that the salient attribute of Nazi Germany was its socialism.
The opposite of crude, narcissistic individualism is not socialism. I suggest you consult a dictionary.
(I don't have a rooster in this cock fight—my politics are a muddle of compassion and get-off-my-lawn-ism and faith in human ingenuity[ism?] and I tend to roll my eyes at anyone either espousing or accusing people of practicing socialism.)
- kmavm 15y agoI grew up in a Marine Corps household, at the height of the Cold War. My father often observed that the military is much more socialist, in the literal sense, than the culture at large: for example, housing, medicine and clothing are not provided by the market. My dad loved the Marine Corps, and loved America's capitalist, individualist culture; however, there is an inherent irony that the military's system is very different from the American system.
- edw 15y agoIn our lives, there are many instances where we organize ourselves in ways that aren't optimized for individual self-aggrandizement. Families are one. I'd say start-ups are another. The sublimation of our own selfish desires for the benefit of another person or for the collective welfare of a larger group happens all the time. A world without such behavior is the stuff of Ayn Rand nuts' masturbation fantasies. I'd never argue that the culture of the military is not, on balance, profoundly different than civilian life, but the term "socialistic" is a misnomer.
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoAnd so is your company. And your internal family dynamics. No points for noticing that different levels of organization are structured differently. The important thing about America is, there exists a level where you may move about freely and make your own choices. Which choices are usually about exactly what structure you want to join.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jhpriestley 15y agoWould a country with two independent socialist states, and the freedom to move between them, be socialist?
- jerf 15y ago"No points for noticing that different levels of organization are structured differently." You may want to reconsider this. I've seen it seriously put forth as a criticism of capitalism that within corporations and organizations they aren't run capitalistically, therefore it's obviously a failure. I consider the freedom capitalism offers to experiment with different organizations within its overarching framework to be one of the key reasons it is so much more successful than the organizations that include as part of their memeplex that they are the one true organization scheme for all purposes. I suspect most people in general have not thought about it enough to realize this as an obvious truth not worthy of "points".
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoReflecting, this topic is mostly about exploring the nested structures in the USA. So good point. Ok, 10 points.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- simonb 15y agoConsidering Nazism stands for National Socialism your friend was not that far off the mark. Not only is socialism != communism != Marxism, there is more than one strand of socialism.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- pyre 15y agoPRC = People's Republic of China. Is China a Republic?
- rquantz 15y agoFurthermore, does China belong to its people?
- edw 15y agoThat's an interesting point: a republic is by definition "by the people," so saying that it's the people's republic would constitute redundant piling-on. But since it's a lie, Mao or whoever named the country should be awarded the Goebbels Medal for Excellence in Propaganda.
- edw 15y agoI was going to mention the etymology of "Nazi" as a protective measure against comments like yours, but I figured that it was unnecessary. Apparently not. "Socialism" is an infinitely malleable and borderline meaningless term that does nothing to shed light on any topic unless qualified with some clarifying adjectives. If you think my friend, who uses the term "socialism" to connect Obama with Hitler, is "not that far off the mark," as you wrote, please by all means let us all know.
- simonb 15y agoAnd yet you used socialism with exactly the same carelessness and ambiguity.