3 ms·

He's writing for the NYT. I haven't read Gar Alperovitz's works closely, but he seems quite a serious thinker. I'm currently giving him the benefit of the doubt

He's writing for the NYT. I haven't read Gar Alperovitz's works closely, but he seems quite a serious thinker. I'm currently giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he has to phrase his message in certain ways to get published in NYT.

trentmb 11y ago
They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.
- kristopolous 11y ago
  I understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.
  - twblalock 11y ago
    Were you under the impression that the author intends to stigmatize anything, or believes that socialism is a bad thing? He is clearly in favor of public ownership.
    - kristopolous 11y ago
      Sure he is. But if I wanted more of something, calling it "socialist" is probably not a winning strategy to help convergence numbers.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    It feels like 'socialism' (which is actually closer to an optimum model than free markets for some types of problem) needs to undergo the same identity shift in the US that started for black & gay people after the Second World War. It's the stigma that's a problem, not the 'socialism'
    - kristopolous 11y ago
      The biggest thing that needs to happen is the realization socialism can exist next to capitalism just like charities, private clubs and other types of charters. Replacing any class of duality based thinking with multiplicity based ones seems to be really hard for people. The capitalism/socialism false binary is pretty ingrained
      - richmarr 11y ago
        Sounds reasonable. Perhaps the 'ism' is the problem; it sounds like an encompassing ideology rather than a tool.
- twblalock 11y ago
  Actually, socialism is a broad enough term to encompass state ownership as well as worker ownership or control. That's true in academia as well as in non-academic discourse. State ownership of major industries, without worker control, often accomplished through nationalization of pre-existing industries, has been a characteristic policy of socialist political parties and governments throughout the 20th century. For example, almost every major industry in the UK was nationalized in the 1940s, and such action was labeled as socialism by both its proponents and opponents. Under this most prevalent usage of the term, state ownership of an electrical utility or a sovereign wealth fund certainly qualifies.
  - trentmb 11y ago
    I feel like a doofus asking this- I was always under the (false?) impression that socialists and fascists were diametric opposites- how is a nation asserting rule over an industry socialist, but not fascist?
    - verinus 11y ago
      well i think that is only due to latest history, but take Nazi party of WWII for example: nazi is short for national sozialist; NSDAP for nationalsozialistische deutsche arbeiter partei (national socialist german labor party)
    - calibraxis 11y ago
      Perfectly sensible question! Meanings of words drift. And these are historic real-world movements; the definitions don't come from dictionaries. Orwellian propaganda muddies the waters: the Nazis called themselves "socialists"; East Germany under the Soviet Union called itself the "German Democratic Republic". These quotes seem to be helpful: "I mean fascism pretty much in the traditional sense, [analogous to] a system in which the state integrates labor and capital under their control. The ideal is top-down control with the public essentially following orders." (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Corporations.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Corporations.h...) "Now, as far as socialism is concerned, that term has been so evacuated of content over the last century, that it’s hard even to use. I mean, the Soviet Union was called a socialist society by the two major propaganda operations in the world: the western one and the Soviet one. They both called it socialism for opposite reasons." (https://tansafte.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/some-footnotes-for-the-video-chomsky-on-socialism/ https://tansafte.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/some-footnotes-for...)

trentmb 11y ago

They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.

kristopolous 11y ago
I understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.
- twblalock 11y ago
  Were you under the impression that the author intends to stigmatize anything, or believes that socialism is a bad thing? He is clearly in favor of public ownership.
  - kristopolous 11y ago
    Sure he is. But if I wanted more of something, calling it "socialist" is probably not a winning strategy to help convergence numbers.
- richmarr 11y ago
  It feels like 'socialism' (which is actually closer to an optimum model than free markets for some types of problem) needs to undergo the same identity shift in the US that started for black & gay people after the Second World War. It's the stigma that's a problem, not the 'socialism'
  - kristopolous 11y ago
    The biggest thing that needs to happen is the realization socialism can exist next to capitalism just like charities, private clubs and other types of charters. Replacing any class of duality based thinking with multiplicity based ones seems to be really hard for people. The capitalism/socialism false binary is pretty ingrained
    - richmarr 11y ago
      Sounds reasonable. Perhaps the 'ism' is the problem; it sounds like an encompassing ideology rather than a tool.
twblalock 11y ago
Actually, socialism is a broad enough term to encompass state ownership as well as worker ownership or control. That's true in academia as well as in non-academic discourse. State ownership of major industries, without worker control, often accomplished through nationalization of pre-existing industries, has been a characteristic policy of socialist political parties and governments throughout the 20th century. For example, almost every major industry in the UK was nationalized in the 1940s, and such action was labeled as socialism by both its proponents and opponents. Under this most prevalent usage of the term, state ownership of an electrical utility or a sovereign wealth fund certainly qualifies.
- trentmb 11y ago
  I feel like a doofus asking this- I was always under the (false?) impression that socialists and fascists were diametric opposites- how is a nation asserting rule over an industry socialist, but not fascist?
  - verinus 11y ago
    well i think that is only due to latest history, but take Nazi party of WWII for example: nazi is short for national sozialist; NSDAP for nationalsozialistische deutsche arbeiter partei (national socialist german labor party)
  - calibraxis 11y ago
    Perfectly sensible question! Meanings of words drift. And these are historic real-world movements; the definitions don't come from dictionaries. Orwellian propaganda muddies the waters: the Nazis called themselves "socialists"; East Germany under the Soviet Union called itself the "German Democratic Republic". These quotes seem to be helpful: "I mean fascism pretty much in the traditional sense, [analogous to] a system in which the state integrates labor and capital under their control. The ideal is top-down control with the public essentially following orders." (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Corporations.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Corporations.h...) "Now, as far as socialism is concerned, that term has been so evacuated of content over the last century, that it’s hard even to use. I mean, the Soviet Union was called a socialist society by the two major propaganda operations in the world: the western one and the Soviet one. They both called it socialism for opposite reasons." (https://tansafte.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/some-footnotes-for-the-video-chomsky-on-socialism/ https://tansafte.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/some-footnotes-for...)