Social Media Outrage/Cancel Culture

[frank ryan]

Anyone who wonders what the unfettered, unadulterated belief in laissez faire capitalism causes should examine all of the contributing factors of the Irish Potato Famine. There was plenty of food in Ireland. The abuses of the laissez faire elite (and their selling that doctrine to the European middle class) gave rise to the social conditions that fomented the rise of communism and socialism in Europe in the late 1800s. By the time most nations had internal combustion engines for farm work, the peasants who didn't have horrific factory jobs were left without any means to eat. It's little wonder that both cities and countryside rose up against the landed gentry and industrial tycoons and threatened to overthrow every government in the Western world. Fettered capitalism is great and how I like to live. Unfettered capitalism makes the rich richer and destroys the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Regulate business. Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Invest in and maintain infrastructure. Protect the environment. Make sure soldiers who are injured or wounded in combat or training for combat enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. Expand opportunities for education (of all types). Give people employment who want it and can't find it (e.g., CCC, WPA). Fund research into every technology that will improve the quality of life. Be patriotic, not jingoistic. That's how you stave off socialism. FDR was a genius.

FDR is considered by a lot of people, esp. his critics to be a socialist.

[wuapinmon]

FDR is considered by a lot of people, esp. his critics to be a socialist.

Of course they do. The bogeyman of political discourse in America (outside of academia) in the second-half of the 20th Century was the socialist in sheep's clothing. FDR is a socialist in that he embraced the working class, listened to their complaints, and then used consensus to create entitlements and programs to stave a full-scale revolution of labor in this country. He took the good ideas that socialists had about how to embrace the common good, and made them law. He was, however, a capitalist at heart, and his policies during the Second World War demonstrate the firm belief in private ownership of industry, only nationalizing certain key industries that threatened the war effort with labor strikes, including trucking companies, and oddly, Montgomery Ward to avert a strike.

If FDR was a socialist, so am I.

[Pelado]

The powerful labour unions that we know today started due to the abhorrent working conditions steel workers faced at the outset of the US era of gilded age capitalism. That period of unfettered capitalism led to incredible social change, and forced an inherently socialist federal government to act to protect citizens. Capitalism unchecked leads to socialist policies and programs that can only be enforced by a federal mandate.

As Marx says, ya gotta go through Capitalism to get to socialism.

When did Marx say ya gotta go through a federal government to get to socialism? It seems that most socialist states have sprung up in countries with a dictator and/or oligarchy.

[wapiti]

It seems that most socialist states have sprung up in countries with a dictator and/or oligarchy.

It could be argued that Venzuela went through capitalism to get to socialism.

[Pelado]

It could be argued that Venzuela went through capitalism to get to socialism.

My question is not and has not been about capitalism, it's about tooblue's earlier assertion that:

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

I still don't see any support for that claim.

[tooblue]

When did Marx say ya gotta go through a federal government to get to socialism? It seems that most socialist states have sprung up in countries with a dictator and/or oligarchy.

Now you are just being willfully obtuse. What evidence do you present to say that the federal government does not engage in a socialist agenda, programs, regulatory actions?

[Walter Sobchak]

Anyone who wonders what the unfettered, unadulterated belief in laissez faire capitalism causes should examine all of the contributing factors of the Irish Potato Famine. There was plenty of food in Ireland. The abuses of the laissez faire elite (and their selling that doctrine to the European middle class) gave rise to the social conditions that fomented the rise of communism and socialism in Europe in the late 1800s. By the time most nations had internal combustion engines for farm work, the peasants who didn't have horrific factory jobs were left without any means to eat. It's little wonder that both cities and countryside rose up against the landed gentry and industrial tycoons and threatened to overthrow every government in the Western world. Fettered capitalism is great and how I like to live. Unfettered capitalism makes the rich richer and destroys the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Regulate business. Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Invest in and maintain infrastructure. Protect the environment. Make sure soldiers who are injured or wounded in combat or training for combat enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. Expand opportunities for education (of all types). Give people employment who want it and can't find it (e.g., CCC, WPA). Fund research into every technology that will improve the quality of life. Be patriotic, not jingoistic. That's how you stave off socialism. FDR was a genius.

[tooblue]

Now you are just being willfully obtuse. What evidence do you present to say that the federal government does not engage in a socialist agenda, programs, regulatory actions?

I'm still waiting Pelado ...

[Pelado]

Now you are just being willfully obtuse. What evidence do you present to say that the federal government does not engage in a socialist agenda, programs, regulatory actions?

I never made any claim as to what activities the federal government engages in, so I don't feel compelled to present any evidence either way.

You, on the other hand, asserted that the very idea of a federal government is a socialist idea. I have yet to see any evidence for your claim. As it pertains to the federal government in the United States, for the very idea to be a socialist, it seems like socialism would have had to predate at least Madison. Else, how could socialism beget a federal government?

I'm still waiting Pelado ...

Sorry for making you wait less than an hour. I'm still waiting for the evidence I asked for yesterday.

[tooblue]

I'm still waiting Pelado ...

While waiting, here's and intriguing read:

But in researching the book, the biggest surprise was that citizen ownership — often stigmatized as “socialist” or pie in the sky — has a pedigree stretching back to the American Revolution. And it wasn’t just James Madison and John Adams. Other be-wigged early presidents of the U.S. and half the crew on Mt. Rushmore — George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — believed that U.S. democracy would work best if citizens had a broad-based ownership stake in the economy. They too feared that extreme property inequality would prevent America from fulfilling its promise.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-the-founding-fathers-beli

[tooblue]

I never made any claim as to what activities the federal government engages in, so I don't feel compelled to present any evidence either way.

You, on the other hand, asserted that the very idea of a federal government is a socialist idea. I have yet to see any evidence for your claim. As it pertains to the federal government in the United States, for the very idea to be a socialist, it seems like socialism would have had to predate at least Madison. Else, how could socialism beget a federal government?

Sorry for making you wait less than an hour. I'm still waiting for the evidence I asked for yesterday.

My statement is self-evident based on the functional purpose of a Federal government. Again, I ask: ... 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?"

I live in the Eastern time zone. I went to bed.

[swampfrog]

Socialism defined as the public (government) ownership of the means of production produces a different answer than Socialism defined as a set of economic principles including regulation by government. This game gets played out all of the time. This conversation cannot be had unless the terms surrounding it are defined. This is true of any complex topics, parties desiring to engage in a conversation about them in good faith require a period of time to first understand how the other parties are using specific words or phrases. It is difficult to do even person to person. In writing it can be near impossible if the gap is too wide.

Bad actors do this intentionally--knowing they use different definitions of words or phrases than the common usage--in order to push an agenda.

[Pelado]

Socialism defined as the public (government) ownership of the means of production produces a different answer than Socialism defined as a set of economic principles including regulation by government. This game gets played out all of the time. This conversation cannot be had unless the terms surrounding it are defined. This is true of any complex topics, parties desiring to engage in a conversation about them in good faith require a period of time to first understand how the other parties are using specific words or phrases. It is difficult to do even person to person. In writing it can be near impossible if the gap is too wide.

Bad actors do this intentionally--knowing they use different definitions of words or phrases than the common usage--in order to push an agenda.

Agreed. I feel like tooblue is conflating various topics. I don't think he's doing it intentionally, though.

A federal government is not a socialist idea and is not a prerequisite for socialism. In fact, the countries that have embraced socialism the most have rarely had a government like the one envisioned by Madison. Socialism can be implemented in most any type of governmental structure - monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, and yes, a federal system like in the United States. But the idea of a federal government is not inherently socialist.

[wuapinmon]

Socialism defined as the public (government) ownership of the means of production produces a different answer than Socialism defined as a set of economic principles including regulation by government. This game gets played out all of the time. This conversation cannot be had unless the terms surrounding it are defined. This is true of any complex topics, parties desiring to engage in a conversation about them in good faith require a period of time to first understand how the other parties are using specific words or phrases. It is difficult to do even person to person. In writing it can be near impossible if the gap is too wide.

Bad actors do this intentionally--knowing they use different definitions of words or phrases than the common usage--in order to push an agenda.

I find, with my students, that if I ask them to define Socialism, they always give me a definition of Communism. Most people struggle to define Socialism, but the Cold War's legacy means that the word is loaded to anyone old enough to remember the Cold War. My students parents try to inculcate the same values in them, but they are usually only successful if the parents didn't go to college, surprisingly.

[wapiti]

Agreed. I feel like tooblue is conflating various topics. I don't think he's doing it intentionally, though.

A federal government is not a socialist idea and is not a prerequisite for socialism. In fact, the countries that have embraced socialism the most have rarely had a government like the one envisioned by Madison. Socialism can be implemented in most any type of governmental structure - monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, and yes, a federal system like in the United States. But the idea of a federal government is not inherently socialist.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think the original idea behind the federal government was two-fold. 1) National defense. 2) Regulate interstate commerce. I'd venture to say that the commerce clause has been interpreted too broadly.