Today's (and tomorrow's) socialists are NOT those of the 20th century who were indeed responsible for its obscene butcher's bill and the penury and despair of countless millions forced to live through it. Instead, this is a NEW socialism; Democratic Socialism, by name and definition.
It is a socialism that expertly harnesses the free market to produce goods abundantly, efficiently, and perfectly in tune with consumer demand. At the same time and by general and democratic agreement, the "excesses" of capitalism are curbed, and the vast productive capacity of the system is carefully and competently managed to provide decent and satisfying lives for ALL the members of a democratic socialist society. THIS time, things will be different—you'll see...
Anyway, I think today socialists or democratic socialists are no different from the socialists of 20th century. I also find it very dangerous that we reduced the communism of 20th century to only Stalin's famines, Gulak, Mao's Tiannamon or Cultural Revolution but forget what communism is about: the total control of the state over the economy to create a "classless" society, which is used justified the totalitariasm of socialism and which today socialists still largely advocate for.
Say once you say healthcare should be controlled by the state, what follows is also the food people eat, the medical devices we use, etc.
I’m quite simplistic in my thinking here. You either sign up for personal Liberty/sovereignty, or you are a collectivist. There are many flavors to this but they all result in statism. I would argue that the current occupant of the WH engages in central government planning although we call it industrial policy. “Re-on shoring” industry generally means huge giveaways at more than 50% of the “YUGE billions being invested in the world’s hottest country” that make the worst asset sale by a large urban center look sane. Government should not be picking winners and losers as the market does it far better. Buying shares in at least ten major corporations at a share that could impact BOD policies, I see as nationalization. As for democratic socialism being “something new,” I disagree. The Frankfurt School were Marxist retreads in their Critical Theory. Keynes was a means of making Fabian socialism palatable to the masses.
Statism locks in yesterday's status quo and regresses.
Unfortunately, statists know how to hand out so many targeted benefits at everybody's expense that no one wants to be the first to give up their benefits. Free markets can't do that.
There have been political factions who wanted to redistribute wealth toward the poor for ages and ages. Does it really matter whether this philosophy is called "socialism" or not? I don't think it makes any sense to wish that the idea never arose.
Personally I wonder which of these movements a libertarian like yourself would have supported. Land redistribution, for example, seems important even before the modern capitalist era. Perhaps if you go far enough back, the Coase theorem wouldn't apply, because mass transactions in a feudal or Roman or pre-historical era were too inefficient.
The goal of the Molotov-RIbbentrop pact was to cause a war between Germany and the Entente that would exhaust both. Then when they were deadlocked in trench warfare sometime around 1942 for 1943 Stalin would stab Germany in the back and get Central Europe for free. Also there might be socialist revolutions in France/Britain because of the war.
From the POV of someone that thinks communism was a good thing and democracy was barely different than fascism, this was brilliant. Just got bad luck in France 1940.
Why stop at just one step of causal chain? If capitalism had never come into existence, socialism wouldn’t have come either. And what led to capitalism, the origin of all modern sins? Perhaps it would be better for all of us if Adam hadn’t eaten the apple.
The existence of capitalism may have been what socialists cited as their reason for inventing socialism, but there's no "inevitably" there. There are (and were) lots of non-socialist reactions to capitalism.
You're beating a dead horse, Bryan.
Today's (and tomorrow's) socialists are NOT those of the 20th century who were indeed responsible for its obscene butcher's bill and the penury and despair of countless millions forced to live through it. Instead, this is a NEW socialism; Democratic Socialism, by name and definition.
It is a socialism that expertly harnesses the free market to produce goods abundantly, efficiently, and perfectly in tune with consumer demand. At the same time and by general and democratic agreement, the "excesses" of capitalism are curbed, and the vast productive capacity of the system is carefully and competently managed to provide decent and satisfying lives for ALL the members of a democratic socialist society. THIS time, things will be different—you'll see...
Is this a sarcasm?
Anyway, I think today socialists or democratic socialists are no different from the socialists of 20th century. I also find it very dangerous that we reduced the communism of 20th century to only Stalin's famines, Gulak, Mao's Tiannamon or Cultural Revolution but forget what communism is about: the total control of the state over the economy to create a "classless" society, which is used justified the totalitariasm of socialism and which today socialists still largely advocate for.
Say once you say healthcare should be controlled by the state, what follows is also the food people eat, the medical devices we use, etc.
The antagonism between socialism and fascism is just sibling rivalry. Stalin murdered Trotsky; does that make Trotsky an anticommunist? Hardly.
Saying that socialism and fascism are opposites is like saying that catholicism and protestantism are opposites.
I’m quite simplistic in my thinking here. You either sign up for personal Liberty/sovereignty, or you are a collectivist. There are many flavors to this but they all result in statism. I would argue that the current occupant of the WH engages in central government planning although we call it industrial policy. “Re-on shoring” industry generally means huge giveaways at more than 50% of the “YUGE billions being invested in the world’s hottest country” that make the worst asset sale by a large urban center look sane. Government should not be picking winners and losers as the market does it far better. Buying shares in at least ten major corporations at a share that could impact BOD policies, I see as nationalization. As for democratic socialism being “something new,” I disagree. The Frankfurt School were Marxist retreads in their Critical Theory. Keynes was a means of making Fabian socialism palatable to the masses.
Freedom provides flexibility and progress.
Statism locks in yesterday's status quo and regresses.
Unfortunately, statists know how to hand out so many targeted benefits at everybody's expense that no one wants to be the first to give up their benefits. Free markets can't do that.
There have been political factions who wanted to redistribute wealth toward the poor for ages and ages. Does it really matter whether this philosophy is called "socialism" or not? I don't think it makes any sense to wish that the idea never arose.
Personally I wonder which of these movements a libertarian like yourself would have supported. Land redistribution, for example, seems important even before the modern capitalist era. Perhaps if you go far enough back, the Coase theorem wouldn't apply, because mass transactions in a feudal or Roman or pre-historical era were too inefficient.
The goal of the Molotov-RIbbentrop pact was to cause a war between Germany and the Entente that would exhaust both. Then when they were deadlocked in trench warfare sometime around 1942 for 1943 Stalin would stab Germany in the back and get Central Europe for free. Also there might be socialist revolutions in France/Britain because of the war.
From the POV of someone that thinks communism was a good thing and democracy was barely different than fascism, this was brilliant. Just got bad luck in France 1940.
Why stop at just one step of causal chain? If capitalism had never come into existence, socialism wouldn’t have come either. And what led to capitalism, the origin of all modern sins? Perhaps it would be better for all of us if Adam hadn’t eaten the apple.
The existence of capitalism may have been what socialists cited as their reason for inventing socialism, but there's no "inevitably" there. There are (and were) lots of non-socialist reactions to capitalism.