CRETINS

CJ: Otherwise,  I can’t imagine what a “social democracy” version of “socialism” could possibly be. Which is it?

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system. It commonly included communism, one of its more radical versions.

Social Democracy is more centrist in terms of economic policy, meaning that the Government has an active role in “stimulating” private enterprise towards some objectives it would otherwise not assume.  It has evolved from the socialism that called for actually nationalizing private enterprise, which proved disastrous. I have lived under such regimes. Have you?

“Nazionalsocialismus” (the Nazis) was also considered a conservative socialist party, thus the confusion in understanding exactly what “socialism” means today. The term was coined in 19th century when numerous political movements existed both on the Left and the Right that used the word. Suffice it to say that Communism was its most exaggerated Leftist-form that actually came to power and was a totalitarian state.

Americans calling Obama, or me, a “Socialist!” mean they know eff-all about the subject because they are cretins.

Because beyond some minimal redistribution on the part of paternal capitalists, there’s almost nothing socialist about any government in Europe.

The “take” is not minimalist and if you knew anything about the matter, you’d not make such a baseless statement. This info-graphic here  explains visually and simply that tax-and-redistribute is far higher in European countries than in the US.

This policy is a key foundational stone of Social Democracies of which the US is not one. In fact, given the warped distribution of Wealth (see here) it can be considered rightly a Plutocrat Democracy - a democracy because (at least) there is the right to vote one’s representatives to a Legislature with the sole right to pass laws.

Get your facts right before blogging nonsense.

Lafayette,

Concerning your own ignorance, please refer to my reply to your rather
confused comment under the Roubini piece, which is still visible if you click on
the archive. It’s apparent you’ve no concept whatsoever of socialism, nor of
totalitarianism for that matter.

Otherwise, I can’t imagine what a “social democracy” version of “socialism”
could possibly be. Which is it?

Whichever it is, it’s “prevailing” nowhere, since what it’s actually doing is failing
everywhere. Why? Because beyond some minimal redistribution on the part of
paternal capitalists, there’s almost nothing socialist about any government in
Europe.

Not that I wouldn’t prefer that much here, but it’s doomed—obviously. You
need to stop seeing everything in black and white; the world is a little more
complicated than you need it to be for your dubious theorizing to work.

And knock off the patronizing attitude; it’s clumsy at best.

CONTROL FREAKS

CJ: I’d be for splitting up every such union, every nation-state into smaller
communities far more decentralized. I don’t know that’s a particularly socialist
idea—probably not, but it seems a prerequisite to socialism that would work.

No, it isn’t. Totalitarian Socialism needs a a large-country governance to prevail.

Which is why the Social Democracy versions of socialism prevails today. Totalitarianism is soooooo 20th century. Which is why the Reactionary Replicants can’t let go of it - they have to control everything.

FT needs one to register and I wasn’t up for yet another username and
password. The still best thing about Truthdig is that one doesn’t have to do the
registration thing, even though I did. The point is that I didn’t have to.

Big Brother is everywhere, needing to know, carrying on like someone with
OCD. FT says it’s free, but one must register. Why? I think of Facebook as
voluntary compliance, Twitter too. Another generation or two, no one will recall
privacy or anonymity. The NSA will own an average-looking house on every
block and CCTV will be every 50 feet.  Satellites will be able to make out
genitals through roof-tops, for any who thinks this latest TSA contraption is
invasive. Big Brother, Brave New World, which all will have seen coming but did
nothing to stop, like most predictable man-made disasters.

Including this latest global economic crisis, which has almost nothing to do
with debt and everything to do with refusing to pay up, most especially on the
part of those for whom enough is never enough, and who then celebrate that
fact as a laudable virtue. “Greed is good.”

Big media broadcasts that 24/7, not least by commercials selling the fact that
“greed is good,” far more than selling products per se. Buy just to buy—
anything, whatever.

Everyone who pays the least attention knows the global crisis is the creation of
those with the mostest, the same who deny class warfare they never cease
waging. From that standpoint, Bernanke and Perry are the same person, both or
one of a class.

All that’s really wrong with Kansas is that the same class has lower classes
buffaloed into thinking their interests are the same. Which amounts to lower
classes committing a sort of unintentional, collective suicide. They’re easily
spotted on TV at tea party gatherings, mouthing off on behalf of a class that
holds them in utter contempt.

Europe has far older traditions, which can be both bad and good. It’s also home
to a far more savage history, which is saying a lot given our own of genocide
and slavery and that worst of wars, our own Civil War. (There’s an oxymoron!
Not to mention just plain moronic, if Zinn was right.)

I believe Europeans really are more civilized by now, at least more so than
Americans. Nonetheless, Europe continues to follow our dubious example in
some of our worst ways, not least insofar as less compassionate.

The idea of a European Union was new and different, and apparently a debacle.
Which might be proof that regional government is a lousy idea. So too is
national government, which by now seems inexorable, like a law of nature.
Actually, the idea’s fairly new and born of capitalist mercantilism.

I’d be for splitting up every such union, every nation-state into smaller
communities far more decentralized. I don’t know that’s a particularly socialist
idea—probably not, but it seems a prerequisite to socialism that would work.
Like your local farmers market, still a market but nothing so dominant as world
markets. Greek city-states were a better idea for participatory democracy.
Nationalism might be dispensed with at long last, deservedly so. It’s an ugly
business.

This all seems impossible in a world so inextricably linked via sophisticated
technology. (Marx never foresaw this problem., though he did foresee each of us
becoming appendage to a machine, like a computer, and deepening division of
labor.)

Roubini is right in the other piece posted today, except capitalism might
already be done, salvation no longer a possibility, which will mean a violent
transformation forced upon us by our own stupidity in failing to listen to those
who saw it coming, and all of it could be seen coming. Maybe growth rates will
return to 3% or so, but for how much longer? While Rapturists are running for
office planning for the really BIG SHOW-down. Growth rates and debt crises
seem less relevant than ever before, as the macro looms ever larger.