And they call us nostalgic!
This article published in the Monthly Review, March 2005, meaning this year, not a century ago: "The only solution, as difficult as this may be to contemplate at the present time, is socialism; socialism, that is, as the socialist movement always meant it to be: revolutionary, democratic, egalitatarian, environmental, necessitating mass participation and mobilization. The difficulties in creating such a society are immense. But 'immense,' as Daniel Singer once said, 'is not synonymous with impossible.' If we want a stable, just, egalitarian, sustainable world in which the 'free development of each is the condition for the free development of all' there is no alternative but a long march to socialism propelled forward by a growing socialist movement. There are already signs of a new dawn—a spectrum that ranges from the antiglobalization movement to the brave revolutionary youth in the hills of Nepal. It is to this new arc of revolution that we must now dedicate ourselves and lend our support."
Comments (13)
What planet does this guy live on?
"brave revolutionary youth in the hills of Nepal"
You mean those bands of thugs and murderers? Well, at least you get to see where his values lie.
I think that was the most out-of-touch article ever written.
I'm stunned.
Published: March 1, 2005 9:55 AM
You shouldn't be that stunned, most of my colleagues here (small liberal arts college in mid-South) feel just as strongly. I am saddended and sickened by it.
Published: March 1, 2005 10:48 AM
I'm not shocked. My whole state, Oklahoma, has a socialist mentality. If the Democratic party would adopt conservative social values, most people in this state would would join them in making this a socialist country. Also, the arts, humanities and social science schools at all US universities force feed socialism to students. We need to be talking more to those people and less to each other about the ills of socialism and benefits of capitalism.
Published: March 1, 2005 12:34 PM
Like Brian, I'm appalled at the salutations given to Maoist insurgencies that practice "revolutionary" acts such as the wanton slaughter of small farmers and forceable conscription of villagers into their "people's armies." And, like Mike and Roger, I'm not shocked.
All I have to do is read the hysterical commentary of the professoriate of the Comparative Ethnic Studies Dept here at WSU (they make no apologies for their views), to understand their visionary approach to the world's problems and their vociferous opposition to the war on terror. These socialists have no principled concerns about the intrusion of the government into the private sphere as expressed here (mises) or at lewrockwell.com; they're actually opposed because they're pro-terrorist.
Published: March 1, 2005 1:15 PM
I believe we are losing the battle against socialism because of our tactics. We tend to develop exquisitely fine logic to support our cases. And we should. But most Americans don't think; they feel. Emotions will win out every time over logic in the marketplace of ideas. I spent 6 years in Toastmasters and one of its main principles was that people make choices for emotional reasons, then search for the logic to support them. We need to focus on the emotional examples of the devastation that socialism causes. Ayn Rand excelled at that. We need more like her. Only after we have the public by their emotions will they listen to our logic.
Published: March 1, 2005 3:42 PM
I believe we are losing the battle against socialism because of our tactics
Our tactics aside, I don't think we're losing. :) Certainly, things aren't perfect, but around the world I think free market principles are becoming more and more prevalent. Perhaps I'm unduly optimistic.
But compared to 15 years ago, I would say the following countries have greater economic freedom:
China
Russia
Eastern Europe
Iraq (whether you support the invasion or not)
Afghanistan
Jordan
India
South Africa
That's over half of the total population of earth who have seen drastic improvements in their economic freedom. Certainly, I am shocked by the losses of economic freedom in some countries I am more familiar with, but overall I think capitalism is doing a lot better than I would have estimated 15 years ago.
We need to focus on the emotional examples of the devastation that socialism causes.
I completely agree. Which is why I think the best thing that free market people could do would be to start a movie company that focused solely on stories in the style of Hotel Rwanda or Schindler's List. Focus on heroic people trying to survive economic repression in places like Cuba, China or Saudi Arabia.
Or, movies about past unjust regimes, like in Eastern Europe. There have to be thousands of great stories in the former Eastern Bloc, it was only 15 years ago -- surely there are many people there who would tell their stories of how they beat the system. These people are heros, but I can't think of a single movie in the last 15 years about their triumph.
Can anyone find a modern day Howard Hughes to pay for it? :)
Published: March 1, 2005 5:12 PM
I agree with all the above posts. I think that an unfortunate by-product of the growing acceptance of capitalism is a radicalization of the socialist "mainstream" -- that is, the Maoists are acting pretty much the same as ever, but more and more of the left is allying with them. And they're not the least bit regretful of it: this course on "American Capitalism" from Dickinson College, for example, doesn't even pretend to present an opposing viewpoint!
-- Lowell R.
Published: March 1, 2005 8:28 PM
URL of "American Capitalism" course: http://www.dickinson.edu/%7Ebarone/AmerKism03.htm
Published: March 1, 2005 8:29 PM
The art and correlating business processes that I invented decades ago have real-time online laboratories to provide user experiences that teach the genius of leaving markets alone (i.e. non-intervention). Metals-based currencies (1994) and everything...
When I took my ideas to the Canadian government and institutions like the Rotman School, I received blank stares and outright indignation for my troubles.
Hooray for socialism.
Published: March 1, 2005 9:03 PM
I notice the socialists are still addictated to telling lies. For example, socialists have "always" been committed to the environment. As if Lenin and the others came over all spiritual at the thought of the Russian forests (or Marx was moved by the forests of Germany).
This "green" stuff is just a bit of spin to try and gain supporters - supporters who do not know that private property is the key to protecting the environment.
Then we have the clear support for the Maoists in Nepal. Should these evil folk come to power and start to exterminate anyone who owns a plot of land or a shop (or anyone who opposes the Maoists whether or not these "enemies of the people" own any property), the socialists will promptly lie again and say that they never supported the Maoists of Nepal.
Published: March 2, 2005 8:38 AM
Movie efforts are being made. Have you visited www.jpfo.org and ordered a copy of _Innocents Betrayed_? Anyone who can watch that and not have their emotions violently react is as stone cold as Stalin himself.
Have you heard of the movie _Serenity_, based on the _Firefly_ TV show? Due out in September with a storyline based on free market interaction while trying to stay out of trouble with Big Brother.
How about the effort to get L. Neil Smith's _Ceres_ made into a movie? Or if you've got some money to invest, Smith is also funding the writing of some of his books by private investment rather than expecting publishers to do it.
As Mr. Moore notes, there are many thousands of stories ready to be put into screenplays. How's your writing?
Published: March 2, 2005 9:34 AM
A cursory review of the article can only leave me to conclude that this gentleman confuses what has supposedly been capitalism since WWII with the soft socialism that it really has been. He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that Statism will always select beneficiaries. Certainly business has benefitted from the socialist policies of 'rational capitalism', but so has the seldom talked about 'non-profit industrial complex'.
The writer simply calls the behemoth we all recognize situated in D.C. as a result of capitalism, and the freedom loving individuals that resist it are socialists. He simply has his semantics fouled up. The behemoth is a result of socialism, and those who resist are libertarians. That is of course is if his true aim is liberty. I doubt that it is since I assume his true aim is to displace the existing socialism with HIS brand, with all the trimmings that go with being the first among equals. And all such folk delude themselves into believing that they are in touch with the Truth, and only they can speak clearly for the masses.
Published: March 2, 2005 10:10 AM
Don't worry, you're not losing the battle for minds and hearts with anyone who is raising a family and trying to stay out of the way of the government schooling/ social services behemoth. Parents already live in a police state, and most of us know it.
Published: March 8, 2005 2:13 AM