4 ms·

this needs to be at the top. the typical american conflates socialism with a centrally planned economy, thanks to the red scare of the 20th century and capitali

this needs to be at the top. the typical american conflates socialism with a centrally planned economy, thanks to the red scare of the 20th century and capitalism's grip on the public's imagination.

chmod600 4y ago
Promises of "socialism" always seem to require granting huge amounts of power to the government, which leads to inefficiency, abuse, and worse. In theory, perhaps socialism doesn't require huge amounts of government power; or perhaps huge amounts of government power doesn't always lead to horrible outcomes. But that's just a theory and has little evidence to back it up at the scale of millions of people. Bernie Sanders said "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"[1] in 2011, less than a decade before collapse. If he can't tell the difference between a socialist utopia and a recipe for disaster, how is a layperson supposed to know? Just like a tech startup: don't call your users stupid and keep pushing your theoretically-good product. Listen and try to understand why it's not working for them. [1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/sanders-distances-himself-from-2011-editorial-on-his-senate-website-praising-the-american-dream-in-venezuela https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/sanders-di...
- gilmore606 4y ago
  > where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger If incomes were equal, how could a Horatio Alger story possibly happen at all? Do people even think about what they say?
stereolambda 4y ago
Well, wait till we try to square what Americans commonly mean by 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' with continental political theory and classic theorists connected to these words. In these cases America is, interestingly, removed to the left. The man who "hijacked" the word socialism would probably be Marx himself, as he declared his theory to be the (scientific) socialism, as opposed to various (he said) "utopian" and "naive" thinkers who hadn't subscribed to views like historical inevitability of communism, or dictatorship of the proletariat. Then in the Eastern Bloc the local political systems were called "real socialism", i.e. the one put into actual functioning, on the road to future communism. So association of socialism with command economy is well established and not really one-sided ideologically, I think. The terms to use if you want to distance yourself from that heritage would be 'social democracy' (if you mean the ideas that were partly implemented in capitalist Europe) or 'worker democracy', if you want something more akin to what the GP described. These ideas are easy to sympathize with on many levels, and what passes for "socialism" in the US is often just the not-really-disputed social contract on the other side of the pond. Ultimately these ideologies advocate for reducing economics, to varying extents, to just democratic politics. Which is kind of boring: not necessarily meaning this as a bad thing. The calculation problem and related issues of organizing true command economy are more interesting as an abstract problems of engineering, organization etc., regardless of actually wanting this politically to happen. (Being formed in part by the Eastern experience, I am very much wary myself.)
cuteboy19 4y ago
And most asian would agree with our American friends. That is how we have experienced it.
- greenie_beans 4y ago
  i think you misunderstood the point.

this needs to be at the top. the typical american conflates socialism with a centrally planned economy, thanks to the red scare of the 20th century and capitalism's grip on the public's imagination.

chmod600 4y ago

Promises of "socialism" always seem to require granting huge amounts of power to the government, which leads to inefficiency, abuse, and worse. In theory, perhaps socialism doesn't require huge amounts of government power; or perhaps huge amounts of government power doesn't always lead to horrible outcomes. But that's just a theory and has little evidence to back it up at the scale of millions of people. Bernie Sanders said "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"[1] in 2011, less than a decade before collapse. If he can't tell the difference between a socialist utopia and a recipe for disaster, how is a layperson supposed to know? Just like a tech startup: don't call your users stupid and keep pushing your theoretically-good product. Listen and try to understand why it's not working for them. [1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/sanders-distances-himself-from-2011-editorial-on-his-senate-website-praising-the-american-dream-in-venezuela https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/sanders-di...

gilmore606 4y ago
> where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger If incomes were equal, how could a Horatio Alger story possibly happen at all? Do people even think about what they say?

stereolambda 4y ago

Well, wait till we try to square what Americans commonly mean by 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' with continental political theory and classic theorists connected to these words. In these cases America is, interestingly, removed to the left. The man who "hijacked" the word socialism would probably be Marx himself, as he declared his theory to be the (scientific) socialism, as opposed to various (he said) "utopian" and "naive" thinkers who hadn't subscribed to views like historical inevitability of communism, or dictatorship of the proletariat. Then in the Eastern Bloc the local political systems were called "real socialism", i.e. the one put into actual functioning, on the road to future communism. So association of socialism with command economy is well established and not really one-sided ideologically, I think. The terms to use if you want to distance yourself from that heritage would be 'social democracy' (if you mean the ideas that were partly implemented in capitalist Europe) or 'worker democracy', if you want something more akin to what the GP described. These ideas are easy to sympathize with on many levels, and what passes for "socialism" in the US is often just the not-really-disputed social contract on the other side of the pond. Ultimately these ideologies advocate for reducing economics, to varying extents, to just democratic politics. Which is kind of boring: not necessarily meaning this as a bad thing. The calculation problem and related issues of organizing true command economy are more interesting as an abstract problems of engineering, organization etc., regardless of actually wanting this politically to happen. (Being formed in part by the Eastern experience, I am very much wary myself.)

cuteboy19 4y ago

And most asian would agree with our American friends. That is how we have experienced it.

greenie_beans 4y ago
i think you misunderstood the point.