7 responses to “‘The Case for Socialism’”

1. 

   Michael McDaniel

   27 May 2010

   George, this article (and advertised book) are extremely scary. As a father with young children the folowing line scared me the most, “Alan Maass’ The Case for Socialism goes a long way in rectifying this information gap, and should be required reading in every high school and college civics class.” I believe that the USA is already more “socialized” than not.
   I guess the first order of business should be the acceptance of a working definition of “socialism.”
   I will provide my lengthy definition (characteristics of) socialism: A system whereby some members of society are forced to give up liberty for the benefit of the collective. A system whereby politicians/planners seek to micromanage, manipulate and control the resources of the nation and the activities of the people in the name of “equality” or “social justice.” In short, a system whereby personal liberty is taken from each individual as a means of providing equality to all citizens.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   27 May 2010

   Mike, I will accept your definition as far as it goes and offer an abbreviated one –
   Socialism is a form of governance that seeks the destruction of the Bastiat Triangle in order to achieve egalitarianism.
   As such, socialism is not the only form of collectivism that sees the Bastiat Triangle as the root of all evil.

   LikeLike

3. 

   RL Crabb

   28 May 2010

   George, you’re always calling me out for equating Nazis with right-wing fascism rather than socialism, but here’s where I see the difference.
   The Russian model for socialism/communism was only achieved by violent revolution. The Germans freely elected Hitler. The Russian collectivists nationalized industry and purged the owners. Hitler was supported by industrialists. The socialists promoted equality (equally poor and miserable, anyway.) while Hitler preached German exceptionalism.
   Simplistic? Yes, I suppose it is. What do I know? I’m just one of those dummies who refuses to fall in line with an ironclad political philosophy. It’s an occupational hazard, and one of the reasons cartoonists are among the first to disappear in such regimes.

   LikeLike

4. 

   George Rebane

   28 May 2010

   Good arguments Bob, and points worth examining in more detail.
   Both the communist (Bolshevik) and fascist (Nazi) revolutions were violent. The Nazi violence was nationwide and in two phases – pre-election and post election. In Germany the clashes with communists and other parties was brutal and long-standing before the election. Hitler was elected to avenge the Treaty of Versailles and suppress (Jewish) communism in Germany. After his election the violence escalated to consolidate his power. Especially targeted were executives of industries who would not play ball with the new regime; the murder/assassination rate was prodigious until the rest of the big corporations fell into line. Franco in Spain came to power after a protracted civil war that was in many ways similar to the Russian civil war that lasted about five years (until 1923) before Lenin was able to consolidate the USSR (and then died).
   Both fascists (proponents of national socialism) and communists (proponents of international socialism) required violence to ascend and dominate, and both effectively used propaganda to win the support of the masses during the critical phases of their ascendancy. The Russian population accepted the fall of Nicholas II with great equanimity and looked forward to a new age of shared wealth, until Stalin showed them how that was to be achieved.
   Hitler did indeed preach German exceptionalism, but not in the sense that some of us believe in American exceptionalism. Hitler’s was racial, non-Aryans need not apply, and required an appropriate ‘Lebensraum’ or living space to adequately supply the comforts to the anointed. Communists preach(ed) a system to perfect society/man on earth that would truck no competition.
   American exceptionalism, however, is a rear-view idea, an interpretation of our history within the context of the histories of other nation-states from the time of our revolution to post-WW2 ascendancy. I don’t think that we have ever had the imperialistic notion of expansion – even during the heady days of 1898 – as the destiny of America. Most certainly we don’t have it now, nor do we view ourselves as intrinsically superior in anything except our own unique form of governance within our borders. And many on the left don’t even view that as being beneficially exceptional.
   In sum, all forms of state-level collectivism have had violent births because of their imposition on the unwilling. Most forms of community level collectivism (the so-called utopias) have had most disagreeable (violent?) dissolutions. I favor continued experimentation with smaller scale collectivism; perhaps someone will find the successful format and we’ll all rush to sign up.
   Until then I’m a capitalist of the Bastiat Triangle hue, and will be standing next to you after they march us to the wall.

   LikeLike

5. 

   RL Crabb

   29 May 2010

   These days it seems to be easier to get elected as a socialist, as the trend in South and Central America proves. I hear the Argentinians are using Che as a tourist draw. I’ve never understood the left’s facination with that thug. Of course, there are still people who think the same way about Jesse James. Then there’s Nicaragua, where Reagan expended a lot of political capital to unseat Danny Ortega. Whatever became of him?..oh yeah.
   The German industrialists may have been squashed by Hitler, but many of them thought he would be good for business in the beginning, including our own Henry Ford.
   There’s nothing wrong with being proud of your country and its achievements, but too often the wrongs committed get glossed over. You know, he who doesn’t learn from history will become a statistic of it.
   I’m with you on capitalism. I depend on capitalists to make my living. I’d apply for a grant, but it takes too much time to fill out the paperwork and there are too many art critics.

   LikeLike

6. 

   Steven Frisch

   29 May 2010

   Amazing. In the very same post you identify communism in Germany with Jews, and condemn the Hitler regime for its anti-jewish violence.
   Don’t you see the connection between the propaganda that identified Judaism with communism and the genocide that followed? It was Hitler’s ability to associate Germany’s ills, including communism, with Judaism, that created the public support necessary for genocide.
   Yet it just rolls off your tongue, “suppress (Jewish) communism”. Perhaps we would have learned by now that although some Jews were communists in Germany, not all communists were Jews.

   LikeLike

7. 

   George Rebane

   29 May 2010

   SteveF, I cited Hitler’s rationale for persecuting the Jews. His connecting the Soviet Jewish leadership to communism made demonizing both in Germany much easier – two birds with one stone and all that. I’m sorry that I didn’t say it clearly enough for you to understand.

   LikeLike