Social Media Outrage/Cancel Culture

[swampfrog]

As demonstrated here:

[swampfrog]

I am not coming out of left field with these ideas. They are not the hilarity creekster suggests they are. A two minute google search can produce a lot of writing on the subject of just how "socialist" the framers of the constitution were. Here's a sampling:

Yes agreed. However from wikipedia:

By the late 19th century, after the work of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, socialism had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production.

We have to contend with the fact that the term is loaded and the meaning is not consistent across demographic categories or groups--or even across time. That produces the problem that declaring:

Of course, the very idea of a "federal government" is in fact a socialist idea,

is an ambiguous statement that requires unpacking. Which has now been done. To my reading that was all the original requests were, to disambiguate that statement.

[wuapinmon]

The bass riddim in "Stir It Up" is outrageously good!

[tooblue]

I don't disagree with your conclusions. By the elaboration provided, it's supportable that the founding fathers were concerned with social and economic class and desired a government in which the harms from those disparities would be minimized. I just don't agree that your earliest framing of that was clear. I appreciate the time you took to further define what your thoughts were.

I am not coming out of left field with these ideas. They are not the hilarity creekster suggests they are. A two minute google search can produce a lot of writing on the subject of just how "socialist" the framers of the constitution were. Here's a sampling:

Guest Columnist Mark Brown, holder of the Newton D. Baker/Baker and Hostetler Chair at Capital University School of Law:

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2009/10/our-socialist-founding-fathers/

"Here’s a shock. Many of our Founding Fathers were socialists. They believed that “essential” services should be provided by government to the public at large for little or no remuneration. The costs of these services would be shared by the whole. This, by most modern accounts, is socialism."


Thomas Jefferson's Liberal Anticapitalism

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3186089?seq=1

"I argue that Jefferson embraced liberal premises, but used them to reach anti-capitalist conclusions."


The constitutional case for democratic socialism

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/02/26/constitutional-case-democratic-socialism/80921386/

"That America is a democratic country has been well settled for more than two centuries now. It turns out that America is a sufficiently socialist country, too. Just a simple reading of the preamble of the Constitution should be a good starting point to understand the fountainhead of democratic socialism in America."


5 reasons why modern wing-nuts would've hated the founding fathers

https://www.salon.com/2015/11/27/5_reasons_why_modern_wing_nuts_wouldve_hated_the_founding_fathers/

"Despite their penchant for name-dropping the Constitution as proof that the central government should be as weak as possible, conservatives ignore that the Constitution was actually written because America’s first federal government was too weak. Signed in 1781, the Articles of Confederation did not allow Congress to impose taxes, impose uniform tariff policies throughout the country, or effectively address the economic concerns of ordinary citizens -- in particular, those who had incurred massive debt during the American Revolution and were being hounded by their creditors.

This last detail is especially important, since James Madison himself later wrote that it “contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Constitution and prepared the mind for a general reform” than any other problem. As a result, the Constitution included protections for citizens facing bankruptcy, explicitly allowed Congress to collect taxes, and in general focused on fixing the problems that had become apparent in the Articles of Confederation."


Our Socialist Founding Fathers

https://ordinary-times.com/2012/07/26/our-socialist-founding-fathers/

"One of these turns on the proposition, that Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment: whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require. Against the solidity of this hypothesis, in the full latitude of the terms, very cogent reasons may be offered."


No, The American Founders Were Not Libertarians

https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/02/no-american-founders-not-libertarians/

"A closer look at the Founders’ thought about government shows their political philosophy that culminated in the Constitution was anything but libertarian."


America Is Not Really a Free Market Economy

https://www.thebalance.com/america-is-not-really-a-free-market-economy-3980689

"The Constitution also instructs the federal government to 'promote the general welfare.'"


Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing

https://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

"Years of digging through 18th century records fleshed out the story, showing the founders' sustained interest in promoting yeoman farmers who owned their land. Research commissioned by Thomas Jefferson found that, when fishermen bargained for their pay in advance and shared in the profits, the operations were highly efficient. (My research assistants at Syracuse University College of Law have for years dug into colonial era and late 18th century American business records, and they have made similar findings.)"

[tooblue]

Ok, raise of hands who didn’t get the reference. Anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many pages of discussion have resulted from my response to the quip, and that have nothing to do with the song reference ... ?

[swampfrog]

This is a “discussion” on a sports message board. In that context, seeking precision, or excessive efforts made to parse otherwise adequate definitions of words, regardless of how broad they could be construed, is a game played (in my experience) by Americans unwilling to come to terms with the fact the US is a social democracy as defined in my earlier post.

This unwillingness is born of an irrational fear of the term social(ism), and the mistaken assumption that the US is a purely capitalistic society. The US is a hybrid society, with a Federal Government that exists almost exclusively to engage in economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy.

There is no need to drill deeper, except where there is a need to deflect from reality of what is; that we are not talking about ancient civilizations, but rather about modern socialism and its inception by the framers of the constitution.

I don't disagree with your conclusions. By the elaboration provided, it's supportable that the founding fathers were concerned with social and economic class and desired a government in which the harms from those disparities would be minimized. I just don't agree that your earliest framing of that was clear. I appreciate the time you took to further define what your thoughts were.

[All-American]

I understood it was a potential song reference. There were plenty of posters who did not because of tone. That's just a fact dude. As far as persecution complexes go, ya'll get right pissy if anyone offers a contrary view, and then holy sh** watch out ... things like a wholesale name change of the site happens.

Ok, raise of hands who didn’t get the reference. Anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pelado]

So, let me get this straight:

Trump asks the Fed to lower interests rates, and then the Fed does it and that is pure capitalism?

Trump starts a trade war, and then must bail out affected US farmers to the tune of $28 billion and that is pure capitalism?

...

And yet the masses here are scared to death of Sanders and the billions he wants to spend

Who said anything about "pure capitalism"?

[tooblue]

So, let me get this straight:

Trump asks the Fed to lower interests rates, and then the Fed does it and that is pure capitalism?

Trump starts a trade war, and then must bail out affected US farmers to the tune of $28 billion and that is pure capitalism?

...

And yet the masses here are scared to death of Sanders and the billions he wants to spend

[tooblue]

Wait, let me get this straight, are you really claiming that modern socialism's INCEPTION was in the US constitution in the 18th century? Talk about your mistaken assumptions.

To be clear, I am not about to engage in this little maelstrom in a Molson can you have going on with yourself about the definition of socialism, so respond however you will. But modern socialism inception was the constitution? That is just freaking hilarious.

Well, since I live with all those pimples on your ass let me continue to make you even more uncomfortable: I did not state "the constitution," but rather the framers of said document. Like that Jefferson fellow, who wrote to Madison that 'legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property. Or, when Washington took land from wealthy landowners and gave it to war veterans.

That's capitalism alright; nothing socialist about it.

[creekster]

I don't think he said that the constitution started socialism, more that federal governments (presumably including the one defined by the constitution) are derived from the thought processes of socialism:

He said:

"There is no need to drill deeper, except where there is a need to deflect from reality of what is; that we are not talking about ancient civilizations, but rather about modern socialism and its inception by the framers of the constitution."

You might be right, I only know what he said.

But like I said, that is not a maelstrom I want to jump into (even though it is a very silly distinction being made).

[Pelado]

Wait, let me get this straight, are you really claiming that modern socialism's INCEPTION was in the US constitution in the 18th century? Talk about your mistaken assumptions.

To be clear, I am not about to engage in this little maelstrom in a Molson can you have going on with yourself about the definition of socialism, so respond however you will. But modern socialism inception was the constitution? That is just freaking hilarious.

I don't think he said that the constitution started socialism, more that federal governments (presumably including the one defined by the constitution) are derived from the thought processes of socialism:

So, when is the Donald going to eliminate all of the "economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of [the US's] capitalist economy?" When will the federal government, under the charge of the swamp drainer stop "[regulating] ... the [US] economy in general, [and in the interest of] welfare state provisions?"

Of course, the very idea of a "federal government" is in fact a socialist idea, but I see all over Facebook that the Donald supposedly gets stuff done, so get'er done already!

[creekster]

This is a “discussion” on a sports message board. In that context, seeking precision, or excessive efforts made to parse otherwise adequate definitions of words, regardless of how broad they could be construed, is a game played (in my experience) by Americans unwilling to come to terms with the fact the US is a social democracy as defined in my earlier post.

This unwillingness is born of an irrational fear of the term social(ism), and the mistaken assumption that the US is a purely capitalistic society. The US is a hybrid society, with a Federal Government that exists almost exclusively to engage in economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy.

There is no need to drill deeper, except where there is a need to deflect from reality of what is; that we are not talking about ancient civilizations, but rather about modern socialism and its inception by the framers of the constitution.

Wait, let me get this straight, are you really claiming that modern socialism's INCEPTION was in the US constitution in the 18th century? Talk about your mistaken assumptions.

To be clear, I am not about to engage in this little maelstrom in a Molson can you have going on with yourself about the definition of socialism, so respond however you will. But modern socialism inception was the constitution? That is just freaking hilarious.

[BigFatMeanie]

Europe and Canada are not socialist countries. They have some socialist-like welfare programs, but they also have very strong capitalist economies. If you look at look at what Bernie was saying a few decades ago, it is clear that he was a devout socialist in favor of state-ownership of the means of production. In more recent years, he has toned that down and claimed he wants to implement something similar to the "Nordic Model," which isn't really socialist at all. The Nordic countries have strong free market economies and relatively low levels of corporate regulation. It doesn't really make sense to claim to be a socialist and be in favor of the "Nordic Model," yet Bernie does it all the time.

In addition to those things, the Nordic countries are also:

- Geographically compact
- Culturally/ethnically homogeneous
- Have small immigrant populations
- Surrounded by other first-world countries (well, maybe not the Finns, they've got Russkies on their flank )
- Have common infrastructure dating back many hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

(The above are all obviously relative)

It would be interesting to consider how those and other factors play into the success of various economic and social policies.

[tooblue]

I agree with this assessment. I think generally the US is best described as a "mixed economy", which covers a fairly broad mix of both private and public enterprises. Describing a system which incorporates elements of the tenets of socialism as a "socialist government" isn't helpful. Ancient civilizations also provided these public goods (roads, water systems, etc.). These ideas existed long before a set of principles were integrated into a socialist doctrine.

It's similar to complaining the Mormon Church acts much in the same was as a corporation. Of course it does, all large organizations act similarly out of necessity--because they are large. The hierarchy and bureaucracy are unavoidable and have inherent weaknesses. It's not that a church is like a corporation, it's that both are instantiations of large organizations and therefore both take on the characteristics of such.



I see this problem quite regularly in the woke vernacular also. It's often feels elitist in nature. The failure of the common man to understand the intricate nuances of a concept, word, or phrase is held against them. Most people understand Socialism to mean the state (as representatives of "the people") takes ownership of the means of production. It isn't the burden of the common man to therefore seek out all of the other definitions used in academic or other elite circles. Nobody has time for that. If that discussion is to take place in a public forum then it is required to first establish the vocabulary of the conversation.

This is a “discussion” on a sports message board. In that context, seeking precision, or excessive efforts made to parse otherwise adequate definitions of words, regardless of how broad they could be construed, is a game played (in my experience) by Americans unwilling to come to terms with the fact the US is a social democracy as defined in my earlier post.

This unwillingness is born of an irrational fear of the term social(ism), and the mistaken assumption that the US is a purely capitalistic society. The US is a hybrid society, with a Federal Government that exists almost exclusively to engage in economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy.

There is no need to drill deeper, except where there is a need to deflect from reality of what is; that we are not talking about ancient civilizations, but rather about modern socialism and its inception by the framers of the constitution.