ADVERTISEMENT

It’s Not Socialism People Want

I always just called this jealousy. 50 years ago, it was about 'keeping up with the Jones' down the street'. But with social media and national news, people's 'neighborhoods' are no longer their block or town. They get to see clearly how the Kardashian's live as billionaires while having no perceivable talent except being smart enough to monetize the desire of others to be like them. They see the VIP lifestyle the hip-hop rapper lives. They see the yachts and private jets of their favorite TV and Movie stars. And they want and desire a piece of that life. And they'll happily vote in whomever promises them a share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkosu and shortbus
I always just called this jealousy. 50 years ago, it was about 'keeping up with the Jones' down the street'. But with social media and national news, people's 'neighborhoods' are no longer their block or town. They get to see clearly how the Kardashian's live as billionaires while having no perceivable talent except being smart enough to monetize the desire of others to be like them. They see the VIP lifestyle the hip-hop rapper lives. They see the yachts and private jets of their favorite TV and Movie stars. And they want and desire a piece of that life. And they'll happily vote in whomever promises them a share.


I agree with everything you said, but I don’t see how it addresses the thesis of the article. What I found so remarkable, something I haven’t seen (or thought myself) was their understanding that the original definitions of socialism and capitalism have become so bastardized they don’t mean anything anymore.

Our friend, Pilt, for example, professes to be a socialist. But when he holds up Norway as the example of what true socialism is, he betrays that in reality he’s what the authors call a transferist. Bernie Sanders and AOC are not socialists by the true definition of the term. They’re statists who seek to use the government to transfer wealth from one section of society to another. And the recipients of that transference applaud and demand more (that’s where the jealousy comes in IMO). Their “brand” of socialism doesn’t call for the state to literally own the means of production, they’re happy to let creative entrepreneurs do the dirty work. They just want to confiscate a portion of the wealth being created from those that created it and give it to others who were not involved in any way. They call themselves socialists, but they’re transferists. I thought it was a fascinating essay.
 
I agree with everything you said, but I don’t see how it addresses the thesis of the article. What I found so remarkable, something I haven’t seen (or thought myself) was their understanding that the original definitions of socialism and capitalism have become so bastardized they don’t mean anything anymore.

Our friend, Pilt, for example, professes to be a socialist. But when he holds up Norway as the example of what true socialism is, he betrays that in reality he’s what the authors call a transferist. Bernie Sanders and AOC are not socialists by the true definition of the term. They’re statists who seek to use the government to transfer wealth from one section of society to another. And the recipients of that transference applaud and demand more (that’s where the jealousy comes in IMO). Their “brand” of socialism doesn’t call for the state to literally own the means of production, they’re happy to let creative entrepreneurs do the dirty work. They just want to confiscate a portion of the wealth being created from those that created it and give it to others who were not involved in any way. They call themselves socialists, but they’re transferists. I thought it was a fascinating essay.

You get too caught up in theory vs. reality. Per your perspective, there is no country today that is capitalist. And frankly, outside of maybe North Korea, I don't think I could name a 100% socialist country. Its not China. Its not even the old USSR. I understand the article and don't disagree with it. Its just a rebranding of a cliche "keep up with the Jones's" that's been around for as long as I remember. I don't believe this is new, but rather the wealth and privilege of the elite is simply more visible to the have-nots, compounded with mechanisms for the have-nots to aggregate a larger collective voice in complaint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkosu
You get too caught up in theory vs. reality. Per your perspective, there is no country today that is capitalist. And frankly, outside of maybe North Korea, I don't think I could name a 100% socialist country. Its not China. Its not even the old USSR. I understand the article and don't disagree with it. Its just a rebranding of a cliche "keep up with the Jones's" that's been around for as long as I remember. I don't believe this is new, but rather the wealth and privilege of the elite is simply more visible to the have-nots, compounded with mechanisms for the have-nots to aggregate a larger collective voice in complaint.
Yes, my perspective of capitalism as properly defined says no country today is truly capitalist. That was kind of the point of the essay. The “capitalist” countries are better described as crony countries, as the article points out.

Capitalism and socialism properly defined are economic theories that are supposed to be unrelated to politics. It’s the introduction of politics into economic theory that creates confusion and strife. And Lordy do we have confusion and strife!
 
The enlightened capitalist recognizes that unfettered income inequality eventually leads to a breakdown in social order and the disfunction of enabling civic institutions (courts, regulatory bodies, political stability, etc).

You guys can whine about entitled/spoiled millennials and let them "OK Boomer" you back all you like.

That won't preserve the essential engine of growth and innovation, but I guess that isn't your goal.
 
... They’re statists who seek to use the government to transfer wealth from one section of society to another...
Can you cite one example of a robust, long lived society that wasn't governed by "statists" as you've defined them? One single, actual, example?
 
Can you cite one example of a robust, long lived society that wasn't governed by "statists" as you've defined them? One single, actual, example?


The Comanche Indians come to mind. Actually almost all the Plains Indians functioned for centuries not being governed (in the sense you are speaking) by statist rulers. Not that that has a single thing to do with the thesis of the article, which explains how political interference with the definitions of prevailing economic thought have been perverted and deserve a definitional overhaul. I thought calling it “transferism” was brilliant. I don’t see anything particularly controversial in the article. Was there something in there that rustled your jimmies?
 
The Comanche Indians come to mind.
...
Was there something in there that rustled your jimmies?
There isn't much that could rustle my jimmies here - that would be like Andre the Giant being perturbed by a half dozen midgets.

As to the Comanches - you picked an interesting group to romanticize. The Comanches were fierce, brutal, and ruled their lands with no mercy. That is the ideal example of your utopian political philosophy. You're an odd duck my friend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ostatedchi
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT