Deconstructing Conservative Myths About Socialism, Capitalism, and Who The ‘Job Creators’ Are

Author: July 15, 2012 8:06 am

Image from http://drivetoacure.org/acne-myths-and-various-assumptions/

Conservatives have taken to a new spin on truth, by refashioning definitions of words and terms in order to provoke new connotations.  Socialism is now defined as a government take over, Capitalism is now defined as patriotic, and the wealthy are now defined as job creators.  But simply redefining these words will not change their true meaning, it is only myth making.

Socialism does not mean the abolition of a free market society, nor does Socialism call for a government takeover of all industry; that is Communism.  Socialists acknowledge the limitation of a free market and believes that some industries should not be run for profit.  Police protection, fire protection, prisons, education, health care, parks, electricity, water supplies, waste and sewage removal, and roadways are just a few examples of industries which should not be run for profit.  The reasoning behind this belief is when these industries are operating for profit, not only will prices rise, but corresponding services would then be reserved only for those who can afford them.  Or more succinctly, no one person should be able to profit over running services, in which everyone benefits from.  One excellent example of Socialism in action is demonstrated in our banking industry.  While most banks operate for the profits of their CEOs, credit unions are owned and operated by the people.  The profits which are not imparted upon CEOs are reflected back to the customer in higher interest rates for investments and lower interest rates for loans.  It may be important to point out that credit unions did not run the same risks as banks when our financial bubble burst, and thus did not need to request nor receive any TARP bailout money.  Nor have the credit unions contributed to the faulty foreclosures as our banks have.  Another example is found in health care.  The free market creates for-profit businesses ranging from medications, medical testing, medical treatments, medical research, to hospitals.  None of which have lowered the cost of health care through innovation or through competition.  This is because the demand of which is a basic necessity, or in other words is non-negotiable.  Like clean water, oil,  and electricity, humans cannot survive without such products or services.  The demand of which is a constant, therefore they are not subjected to the Keynes supply and demand curve.  When prices go up, demand does not lessen beyond a certain threshold.  Americans may forgo a pleasure trip to conserve on gasoline consumption, but their demand for gasoline to take them to and from work is non-negotiable.  Where the free market brings economic ups and downs which effects everyone, Socialism believes that there is a limit on the protections a free market provides.  And quite simply, some things should not be run for profit, especially at the expense of everyone else.


// ]]>

Capitalism is an economic term for the free market system which is structured upon the accumulation of money, where the means of production are privately owned and operates for profit.  Capitalism is neither right nor wrong, it is simply an economic term.  Nor is Capitalism patriotic!  A system which encourages the accumulation of wealth does not salute a flag, nor is it loyal to a native country.  This market system crosses state and national borders in order to provide larger profits for business owners.  If labor costs are cheaper overseas, then it is capitalism which will drive businesses out of our country.  If a company finds it cheaper to produce a dangerous product than it is to produce a safe one, it is capitalism which will produce the most profitable option without consideration of customer safety.  Capitalism only seeks profits and will by nature migrate operations towards areas which promotes greater profits.  Capitalism has no allegiance to any one country as it operates in a global economy.  Again, capitalism has no allegiance with patriotism.  Where would a business find themselves most profitable?  Would they find a country with extremely lower labor costs to be more profitable for manufacturing than a country with higher labor costs?  Would they find a lower taxed area more profitable than an area with high demand for their products?  But most of all,  wouldn’t it be more patriotic for an American business to spark demand in order to operate, manufacture and sell their goods or services inside America, as opposed to overseas?

The wealthy are not necessarily the job creators.  Poor and desperate innovators have sparked many new business ventures despite their lack of wealth.  Many small businesses began out of practically nothing, but only an idea executed inside of their garages.  The fact of the matter is that neither wealth nor lower taxes create jobs; only demand creates jobs.   This little tidbit of truth is lost in translation when the wealthy are deemed as “Job Creators”.  This ploy is used to promote additional tax breaks for those who already have enough and while promoting cuts in public services on those who do not have enough.  Another tidbit of truth which is diluted in this argument is the inequality of income between the workers and the owners.  A manager typically earns 343 times more than an average employee.  And while 88% of domestic profits go to corporate bank accounts and CEO bonuses, only 1% of these profits gets applied towards labor.  The business owner shoulders no responsibility for producing any product or service.  Rather the business owner invested their money (and in most cases time) into a business which is productive.  Productivity is a result of the balance between the investors, the managers, and the workers.  It is a symbiotic relationship, which many Americans cannot conceive of.  For where would any business be without any one of these three elements?  Despite conservative talking points, even the lowest of employees is an invaluable asset to a business.  In a restaurant, an effective business owner knows that the dishwasher and busboys are just as important to their operation as their managers and customers.  If you remove the dishwasher and/or busboys from the equation, the business suffers.  Yet an effective manager can be absent from their responsibilities and the operation should not be sacrificed.  So which employee should be valued more than the other, the laborer, the manager, or the investor?  The answer is neither of the three.  For without one, the other two would not have a business operate or a job to tend to.  Yet the argument goes that only the wealthy create jobs.  Without enough demand, even these jobs won’t last very long.

We should not tax our job creators in a time of economic recession.  But we have misidentified exactly who these job creators are.  When our recession is being prolonged out of a lack of demand, it is not the business owner who can create jobs.  But rather it is the customers who spurn on demand who create jobs.  The businesses who pocketed great sums of cash during our economic catastrophe will still be there when we come out of it without the need to create more jobs.  But these businesses will find themselves with greater profits when demand picks up again, and that is what will create jobs.  So let’s not overburden our true job creators, the customers.  In order to spark higher demand, we must effect the largest target market we have at our disposal.  It’s not the wealthy who can spark this demand; they only constitute up to 2% of our populace.  Rather, we should focus our attention on the other 98% of our populace, our struggling middle class and poor.  Henry Ford believed that his product meant nothing unless there were customers who were able to purchase it.  In order to ensure his company’s success, he paid his laborers more than other businesses, so they may buy his cars.  This enabled his employees to comfortably afford to buy Ford products.  This sparked higher demand, which in turn produced higher job growth.  Which led to Ford’s success story.  Henry Ford did not believe in paying the least amount possible for labor, eliminating the minimal wage, or acquisitioning higher profits.  Instead he realized the symbiosis between business and labor and between the business and its customer.

facebook comments:

75 Comments

  • I would just like to commend the original author on
    his /her attempt to reclaim the word Socialism from the clutches of the near fascists (oops is that too defamatory)Like Mr limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly et al. I think it is quite apparent in a modern society no system can work in a pure undiluted form and that some compromises are required therefore giving us “caring Capitalism” & “Social Democracy” to name but two.
    The One question i pose is if Insurance companies can dictate terms and conditions on healthcare and make profit,how is it impossible that a democratically owned company cannot ? surely the answer is in management and why should a socialised system not be run on a meritocratic principle. All incentives can still be applied on a cost effective improved plan. I do not believe that Greed, power and profit are necessary motives for the improvement of life.

  • This is truly weak. Funny that it is the Right who is being disingenuous through the redefinition of terms. But I’ll leave that alone. Let’s consider your errors…

    ~~ “While most banks operate for the profits of their CEOs, credit unions are owned and operated by the people.” ~~

    Banks are corporations, which are operated for the profit of shareholders, represented by a board of directors, who also determine the wages of the CEO and every other senior executive. Shareholders invest their hard-earned money hoping it will grow. Credit unions are great institutions, but the shareholders are the depositors themselves, and the potential profits are incredibly minuscule. The benefit is ease of borrowing for small purchases, usually without collateral requirements. Yes, credit unions are more like socialism than banks, and just as with all forms of socialism, it constrains growth rather than promoting it.

    ~~ “It may be important to point out that credit unions did not run the same risks as banks when our financial bubble burst, and thus did not need to request nor receive any TARP bailout money.”~~

    Credit unions are not permitted to engage in many of the risk-reward activities that regular banks conduct. That keeps the money safer by sheltering them from the bad decisions begun through the Community Reinvestment Act, and laundered through bundled bad mortgage paper, but once again, constrains the potential for quality profit gains.

    Check your premises and do your homework. I could go on, but I suspect that you are settled in your ignorance to how the world really works. Perhaps others have ears to hear.

    • Haha Freelancer: “let’s consider your errors.” “Check your premises and do your homework.”

      You can always spot Looneytarians who ape Ayn Rand’s puffy, insecure ad hominems.

      Freelancer: “Shareholders invest their hard-earned money hoping it will grow.” Notice how Freelancer inserted “hard-earned” to try to con people? This indicates to me Freelancer knows it’s a capitalist scam. Are we to assume all invested money was earned via work or productivity? Or was it–gotcha–just previous investment income (“hoping it will grow”-type income)?

      Was it hard earned, or did it just “grow,” i.e. was it the hard earned money taken from someone else, via capitalism?

  • I also got this cleared up, the reason why companies are not investing into new jobs. Is because of Obama-care, whether its an Liberal centered company or not. They all don’t really know how expensive its going to be.

    • Anne in Colorado

      Companies aren’t hiring because the middle class isn’t buying. The middle class isn’t buying because their wages haven’t been keeping pace with productivity.

      • The middle class isn’t buying as much because inflation has raised the cost of everything, thanks to stimulus, green energy and qualitative easing.

        • LMAO at “qualititative easing.” You CLEARLY mean “quantitative easing,” but you lost all credibility when you made that EGREGIOUS error.

          • “The reasoning behind this belief is when these industries are operating for profit, not only will prices rise,”

            False

            Prices rise when government attempts to stick its hands in LEGITAMITE private enterprise. Televisions, DSLRs, cell phones, landscaping, etc etc etc all have gotten cheaper BECAUSE government hasn’t touched it.

            And where have prices risen? In your so-called ‘private’ industries get ready for the most narrowly cited list of private business of all time)

            “The free market creates for-profit businesses ranging from medications, medical testing, medical treatments, medical research, to hospitals”

            False again. These are government driven enterprises where the inevitable results are higher prices. Education, healthcare, and weapons mfring are all government bought, escalating prices beyond belief!

            Your mishandling of facts is at best naive, and at worst calculating and tyrannical.

        • Inflation has been relatively low, less than 4% the last two years. So try again.

          You obviously have no clue but are desperate to find a way to blame Obama and liberals.

          PTxS

    • Yes they can go to Canada where no business pays for health care because the Government takes up all the costs, or just be like most businesses in the US and dump the responsibility on the workers.

      There! problem solved…. Oh that’s right that was just a stupid talking point that had no relation to reality so health care costs were never part of the problem in the first place…nevermind.

    • Haha so we were losing 750 thousand jobs a month in 2008 because of Obama-care? Nice try but you can’t blame Obama for things that happened before he was president. Well you can but it’s absurd.

  • I do find it a tad ridiculous that to create jobs has to have government “incentive” to do so, even the reasoning, Mr. Educated Conservative, my dad gives, seems a bit ridiculous. I mean whats wrong with a little money lost in a big company, your still spending money to make money, getting money from the government to make money kind of defeats that concept. Its kind of like going to the casino and using an $10 freeplay to get double or five times more, do that frequently, its kind of like stealing. How would you react if people were just coming in, taking free money while watching your assets dwindle(Its happening with social security too).

    • ALL money comes from the government. Don’t believe me? Try to form a corporation in Somalia. It should do well without all that government in the way…

  • If we boil this down, and even remove the discussion of the differences between socialism and capitalism, there’s one factual meme that should be spread far and wide…

    Customers (demand) create jobs.

    No matter what economic setup you have, if the vast majority of the populace doesn’t have much disposable income, the economy flatlines.

    • Customers do not create jobs. Companies create jobs. However, it is not the purpose of a company to create jobs.

      It is the purpose of a company to make money.

      If demand of the customers is great enough and the company decides that the investment in a new headcount will bring in a net increase in money thanks to increased productivity, then the company will create a new job.

      If the company thinks it can meet the new demand with the same number of employees, possibly with the addition of new technology instead of a headcount, the company may decide to purchase new technology instead.

      • Thanks You have just proved that the companies don’t create jobs. They just take the money and consider no responsibility for any damage to society that they do, but only if it will make more money. So no matter how criminal the enterprise there is no reason for some government regulator to restrain such free market capitalism.

      • You demonstrated that customers do create jobs. Customers create the demand and provide the income. Without customers there is no business and no jobs.

      • Really? Customers do not create jobs? Where precisely do you think companies get the money to pay their employees? Do they magic it out of their butt? NOPE! They get it from customer sales! Meaning, more customers, more money. Higher demand means, eventually, they will have to hire more ppl. Even if they decide to upgrade their technology, someone has to run, repair, maintenance, etc, that technology. COMPANIES don’t do squat but make money. CONSUMERS are the job creators. Supply means nothing if there is no demand

  • It’s called “homage” – an artist’s term.

  • A friend forwarded your article to me and I enjoyed reading it. I provided my comments to my friend via email but thought you might be interested in them as well: http://itscomedowntothis.blogspot.com/2011/07/right-wing-myths.html

  • VoxVeritasVita

    I might add that the energy industries are a vital part of any country’s infrastructure and as such needs to be nationalized. Think about it.

  • Brightwater

    “Henry Ford believed that his product meant nothing unless there were customers who were able to purchase it.”

    Exactly. If you listen to one group of capitalists, the problem with the economy is that workers get paid too much. If you listen to another group, the problem is that people aren’t buying enough. Hello???

  • Fallingspider

    Trying to do some research on socialism, and curious about a comment made about how the US is subsidizing the european socialism to prevent the economic collapse of Europe. Anyone know if this is true, or is it a truth being twisted into something else?

    • It’s true. We’re bailing out European Socialism because it is in fact A FAILURE. The only people who can’t see it are naively trying to put power into government hands, where it does not belong.

      • Fallingspider

        Thanks for the reply, however I need acutal sources. I can only find sites that are claiming we are, nothing that shows proof.

        • Please site proof that conservatives are defining those terms the way you are. Can you provide some citations?

          You seem to be arguing semantics when historical data clearly shows the tenets of Socialism, Marxism, Communism, et al are destructive to individual freedom and opportunity to dictate ones destiny, economic or otherwise.

          I understand the allure to the compassionate sounds these ideologies resonate, but when put into practice they inevitably produce repressive regimes. They seem to always fall prey to one universal aspect of human nature; selfishness. Take that human flaw out of the equation and socialism might actually work.

          The great republic formed over 235 years ago, while far from perfect, has provided more individual freedom and opportunity than any nation in history. The problem with socialists and the like-minded is they want the guarantee of equal outcome. How do you provide that without force? Hence very limited freedoms and choices.

          Sorry but the trade-off is not worth it and the outcomes are never equal regardless.

          • This country has provided more individual freedom and opportunity than any nation in history? Wow, we managed in 200 years what England hasn’t in nearly 1000? wow i had no idea I lived in a country that was so far and away better than every other culture that was much older than we are. And we wonder why other countries view us as arrogant egomaniacs.

        • Republicans and most American conservatives RARELY look up any of the buzzwords they use, like “socialism” or “job-creators.” They just MAKE UP silly, hyperbolic definitions out of thin air. “Socialism” is just the new “communism”, really. These people have NO IDEA that Europe’s been doing its OWN brand of quite-successful ‘socialism’ (democratic socialism or social democracy, whatever you wanna call it) for quite some time!

          They insure you against a catastrophic medical event, so you don’t go bankrupt trying to pay for treatment. They insure that drug companies can’t fuck you up the ass with high prices. They insure that you have a decent income EVEN IF you lose your job thanks to unforseen events, and you can get the resources necessary to actually find a new one. You don’t have to rack up ENORMOUS student loan debt in Europe, EITHER, believe it or not.

          Let’s face it: Taxpayers actually GET WHAT THEY PAY FOR in Europe! Those social insurance programs are known as “automatic stabilizers” to any economics expert and for good reason. The American welfare state is a joke! We only have a relative FEW large programs that help a lot of people in a decent way. The others we either cut in the worst of times or underfund in general. It’s a disgrace! Our infrastructure is CRUMBLING, TOO! But Republicans don’t seem to care about that.

          All they care about is helping their rich cronies and defense industry buddies. They CONTINUE to jutsify spending way more than all other nations combined on defense. WHY?? Why is this nonsense necessary? I think if you spend more than the next 5 or 10 nations in terms of defense, you’re pretty much GUARANTEED not to get attacked or destroyed. So I think we can afford to let up a little on the overspending. THAT is overspending! Not “Obama’s debt”, which is really mostly the product of the RECESSION and lack of tax revenues.

          Look at the plain facts: Obama’s budgets since he entered office in 2009 have had practically the SAME proposed expenditure totals as Bush did in his last years of office. So HOW could Obama be “overspending” massively? This is nonsense. Republicans are too stupid to realize that the national debt increases have more to do with a lack of money for the gov’t than wild spending increases.

          I mean, I can only DREAM of Obama proposing massive spending increases for things like infrastructure, social insurance, etc. He’s far from the liberal most expected, even though I personally didn’t vote for him (voted for Nader).

          • “These people have NO IDEA that Europe’s been doing its OWN brand of quite-successful ‘socialism’ for quite some time!”

            Greece, Spain, Ireland and France would like to have a word with you. I think they want a bailout.

            Meanwhile the old communist bloc nations are laughing at you.

          • i agree, Reagan slashed many social programs, yet was spending on military and weapons. American people are taught from birth to view anything socialistic as dictatorship and lack of freedom. They can’t even tell you what socialism is. Life in Germany, Sweden, etc, is not great because of the free market, but because of strong social programs. Indonesia, Pakistan, Mexico, etc, all have free market, no regulation, yet they are the poorest of all. Almost the entire world is capitalistic and practice free-market, yet almost all are poor. The US used to be just like those countries where there is child-labor, 20 hour work shifts, etc.

      • Mkatweeks, the purpose of someone taking the time to write this expose’ of economic philosophies is to get some education. After reading this article….I hope, you can rethink some of the baseless arguments that was pounded into your senses deliberately. You now know it was just another defense of a system that’s uneven in its disposition of wealth.( Do you remember when President Obama first talked about uneven disposition of wealth to working Americans, Joe Plumber echoed the Republicans positions). You have NO evidence..In fact you don’t care about evidence of the economic relationship we have with the Europeans. But you forgot to mention the over 6 million a day we sponsor Israel. You never hear they being classified as Socialists. Its the bullshit in the politics we are trying to get rid of.. The residents of this Planet want info..that can be certified . It has become part of our life for those who want to justify their personal interest, to crazily call those who are not convinced..Naive . That’s the way Michele Bachmann argues.

      • No, you’re bailing out those countries which went the IMF route of austerity economics.

    • I wrote a long post on this some time ago. Northern Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark)is doing just fine. It is Southern Europe (Greece, Italy, Spain) that is so problematic, but primarily over corruption that has never been eradicated and lead to gigantic thefts from inside the banks, having nothing to do with the economies per se. Iceland was also victim of such a massive theft but refused to take the fall for it and dumped the costs back on the banks.

      Far from subsidizing the the “Socialist Failure” the US banks like Golden Sacks are complicit in the theft, and the American Federal Reserve is funding the cover up.

  • “Or more succinctly, no one person should be able to profit over running services, in which everyone benefits from.” People, puhleeze, these issues are far too important. Could we please hire writers who can produce competent English? This smacks of that bizarre phenomenon I used to find in undergraduate papers much too frequently, in which under-educated students seemed to believe that they were not allowed to use “which” without “in.” The correct phrase, of course, would be: “…that everyone benefits from.”

    • Actually, Mr. Turner, you’re wrong, too. Proper grammar dictates that no sentence should end with a preposition. Here’s how the sentence should have been written:

      ” . . . no one should profit from providing services from which everyone benefits.”

      But the point behind the original sentence is apt, wouldn’t you agree?

      • What is this, 1952? A preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with. Although, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, perhaps that is something up with which you will not put.

        • It most certainly is NOT! You NEVER end a sentence with a dangling preposition! That’s the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard.

          (Though if you were just being funny, I apologize. My Grammar-Nazi-ism really goes off on dangling prepositions, double spaces after a period, and people misusing the words “good” and “well” (you -are- something “good”, and you -do- something “well”).

          • I remember the common comment in Hawaii about the five richest families in the islands who were all descended from preachers who came to the Islands to “Convert the Heathen” and ended up owning nearly everything.

            “They came to do good but did well”

            • really? we are complaining about the structure of the sentence rather than the content? Is that not a little like arguing over how to repair a bridge as it is falling down around you?

          • verseandvoice

            Ending a sentence with a preposition is not only ok but sometimes the best option. The Chicago Manual of Style says that “The traditional caveat of yesteryears against ending a sentence with prepositions is, for most writers, an unnecessary and pedantic restriction.” Strunk and White wrote in The Elements of Style that “Not only is the preposition acceptable at the end, sometimes it is more effective in that spot than anywhere else. Finally in Garner’s Modern Anerican Usage “The spurious rule about not ending sentences with prepositions is a remnant of Latin grammar, in which the preposition was the one word that a writer could not end a sentence with.”

            So there you go, it’s ok to do it and the above contributors can go back to their pharmacists and get the right medication.

            Ciao :-)

            • verseandvoice

              Oh I forgot, one last comment from the Chicago Manual of Style, “The ‘rule’ prohibiting terminal prepositions was an ill-founded superstition.”

              All over, class dismissed, did anyone learn anything?

              • verseandvoice

                And just to get the above grammar snobs in a total froth because they have no idea what they’re talking about and hate being shown that they don’t comes this from Fowler’s Modern English Usage. “One of the most persistent myths about prepositions in the English language is that they properly belong before the word or words they govern and should not be placed at the end of a clause or sentence.”

                *Walks off whistling.*

    • No, no, no. It should be “from which everyone benefits”.

  • Some of these comments show a staggering level of ignorance about the broad field of theory regarding socialism. Nice job on the piece!

  • “Socialism is now defined as a government take over, Capitalism is now defined as patriotic, and the wealthy are now defined as job creators”

    If this is a new trend, provide examples.

    Also your definition of socialism, with a thriving free market, is more like European-style social democracy. There are various forms of socialism, from near-communism to free market models.

    • Socialism (as in a socialized society) was always a value goal and not a plan. With a definition similar to a socialized child it implied a society where all decisions are made with empathy for all that would be affected by the decisions. Where everyone would be empowered to achieve the greatest accomplishment without artificial barriers and thus advancing all of society. With this definition a Socialist Dictatorship is a contradiction in terms.

      Now there were many dictatorships built on the Orwellian model and called themselves Socialist because it sounded good, but they called themselves Democracies as well and nobody uses the Soviets as the definition of democracy, and should not as a definition of Socialism either.

  • Hugo Schmidt

    Fascinating.

    “Socialism does not mean the abolition of a free market society, nor does Socialism call for a government takeover of all industry”

    so·cial·ism   
    [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
    –noun
    1.
    a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

    This is also how the term has been used by every single major writer in the socialist tradition, from Marx onwards. It is also the policy that has lead to nothing – nothing – but slave camps and death camps, to poverty and starvation.

    The sheer moral irresponsibility of the intellectuals always staggers me.

    • Uh hum. Read Przeworski’s work “Capitalism and Social Democracy” for a better understanding of what the author wrote. A dictionary definition, or an old definition used by Marx does not show how the idea of socialism as transformed over time and how it is now part of every economic system on the planet. Ever nation has socialized parts of the economy and capitalistic parts of the economy and it’s not an either/or choice, it’s how much government and societal control you want and how much you want goods as services to be part of the free market.

      The author clearly states that the needs of the citizens should be served as a social enterprise, i.e. police, fire, etc. I agree, with one caveat.

      The author states, “Like clean water, oil, and electricity, humans cannot survive without such products or services. The demand of which is a constant, therefore they are not subjected to the Keynes supply and demand curve.” While that may be true for any given household, societal demand increases with changes in population, climate, technology and in other ways. So demand is not as stagnant as laid out here.

      Well done!

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

      • Hugo Schmidt

        This is flat out false and sinister. This “evolution” that you talk about is that socialists will tie themselves in knots to avoid taking responsibility. After they have caused incalculable human misery, they now want to shrug and go “oh, but we didn’t mean _that_”. Sorry, simply not good enough.

        If one reads all the socialist literature back in the day, it was taken for granted that the state controlled economy would be so much more efficient and overtake the free market. A few hundred million corpses later and they change their mind. And one is supposed to be impressed by this?

        • So, do you like public schools, public roads, street likes, the military protection, police and fire? Those can all be defined as “socialistic” enterprises, or state run functions.

          You are confusing state run communist states with state fun functions. We have some socialism right here in the United States. I suggest you update you definitions. McCarthyism is was discredited in the 50s, yet you still hold onto that ideology.

          And read the (which you won’t) the platform of the Labor Party in England, the Green in Germany and the Social Democrats in Sweden to understand what modern mixed economies means and what modern capitalism in advanced economies has evolved into.

          Peace,
          Tex Shelters

          • Hey Tex…you are (as you know) absolutely correct. However, having a friend who also does not understand this type of modern socialism I think we need a new label. Unfortunately, too many people resort to the old socialism model to try to understand and have trouble realizing it has evolved. Social-Capitalism is too long! It’s nice to know there is more than one Texan who is enlightened (my significant other is from Ft. Worth).

          • First of all, McCarthyism was discredited — even though McCarthy was deadballs RIGHT about the Rosenbergs. You are aware that they were in FACT guilty of espionage and treason, right? Then, how was it discredited? The media, the intellectuals, and Socialists just repeated the lie over and over until people stopped looking up the facts for themselves. Secondly, our MIXED economy (a.k.a. SOCIALIST economy) is proof positive that when the federal government gets involved, they do nothing but pay-off the cronies who got them into office. They’ve become a new corrupt elite class that bargains with taxpayer money to make the rich richer. Quit making excuses to give even MORE power to idiots who abuse it regularly. I take issue with your name, because Texans usually realize this FACT.

          • First of all, McCarthyism was discredited — even though McCarthy was deadballs RIGHT about the Rosenbergs. You are aware that they were in FACT guilty of espionage and treason, right? Then, how was it discredited? The media, the intellectuals, and Socialists just repeated the lie over and over until it became true in the minds of the ignorant.

            Our so-called MIXED economy is proof positive that Socialism does NOT WORK. Instead, it creates a new elite class of corruption and kills the middle class even further.

            How can anyone be foolish enough to believe that giving MORE power to the most corrupt people in this nation is going to fix any of the problems that government created? Police, fire, schools, it all falls under state and local government. That isn’t socialism, it’s federalism. And some of the most cost-effective solutions that localities use for these services are indeed in the private sector. Government doesn’t run ANYTHING better than the private sector, but it sure does COST a hell-of-a-lot MORE.

            Isn’t it nice how we taxpayers bailed out the union pensions? It’s bankrupting us as a nation, but it felt good, I guess, because Socialists are all about feeling good and ignoring REALITY.

            • Wow. I never said pure socialism, what I call communism, works. Also, having a mixed economy proves pure free market capitalism doesn’t work either, if you will.

              What the Rosenbergs have to do with this is beyond me.

              Apparently, you don’t understand what I have written and haven’t followed up and the links and can’t be bothered educating yourself about mixed-economies and Social Democrats.

              Too bad.

              State and local government do run schools. It’s still government, is it not. And you ignore the military and highways and FAA and other federal programs that protect and serve. Next time you think about using a federal highway, get off. It’s socialism!!

              And don’t buy inspected meat. It’s socialism!! And don’t fly on planes, it’s run by socialists!

              Ideology is not a replacement for facts and logic.

              Peace,
              Tex Shelters

              • I would be wary of using schools, social programs, energy departments, etc as positive examples. Public schools have lowered standards, social programs are bloated, convoluted and may cause more harm than good by making people too dependent. Government programs are usually expensive and inefficient. They are dependent on politicians getting elected which can cause short term decisions that have long term negative consequences (Johnston’s Great Society-families were rewarded financially to have more children and no father.)
                I think the point of the Rosenburgs is that there really were people committed to destroying our county from within, but the people who were trying to expose it (some very badly) were demonized beyond reality by “progressive” journalists. Capitalism certainly has its problems, but government regulation and taxes have hurt small businesses which provide jobs and revenue and have hurt the family structure.

                Finally, I am a product of the 60s and 70s school system, but my grammar still is not perfect.

                • Schools lowering standards is a myth, unless you mean that the standards have been lowered in comparison to the 1700s-1800s when education was the privilege of the few. Standards here in California are HIGHER than they were when I graduated high school in 1987. It is now standard for students to be placed in Algebra earlier and en masse, whether they are ready or not. It is now required that students pass Algebra to graduate high school. This shows an increase in standards, not a decrease. It is common now to demonize public education as a failure, but that does not make it an accurate assessment. Graduation and literacy rates have held steady since the 70s.

          • Schools, Police and Fire started out in this country as private institutions or private insurance policies an individual made with a group of people offering a service. Over time it has ‘evolved’ into the social contract we see today, but was still intended to be locally funded and controlled. The Department of Ed messed that up, but police and fire are still local. The Unions are *trying* to change that.

            Roads and Military are Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government.

            As to your question, no I don’t like public schools. On average they do not provide a service for the amount I am taxed. My child will be home-schooled or go private.

            I don’t like the police or fire now that courts have stated they don’t have to put their lives on the line to save mine. And I *really* don’t like public sector unions bargaining for more money without my involvement in the negotiations.

            I like roads, I use them a lot. And I like the military, so long as they remember their oath is to protect the Constitution and not a politician.

            What you are defining as ‘socalism’ is a community contract made by larger towns and cities with an expectation that their tax dollars will be spent wisely. Smaller townships and similar do not have police or fire departments. They instead depend on each other.

        • You say that socialists “tie themselves in knots to avoid responsibility” yet every corporation is incorporated as an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) for the very reason of avoiding responsibility, and usually incorporated in a state that has little or no Corporate tax another loophole to avoid paying their fair share.

          • I’d suggest that LLC’s are less about not taking responsibility and more about protection from an overly litigious society that sues when they spill hot coffee on themselves…

            • LLC means that when the cops come there is nobody home to take the rap. The Society is only overly litigious when they come with pitchforks and torches for YOU!

              If you doubt it just try painting Mickey Mouse and Pluto on the walls of your preschool with no money made or profit anywhere. Disney will still sue you to the poorhouse when you have done them no damage and possibility should have them pay an advertising fee. (ps this actually happened)

    • And if I look up “Christianity”, my dictionary will give the same result: One that’s technically accurate but misses most of the detail. Socialism, like most economic systems, a massive amount of differing theories.

    • Just because 50 years of propaganda have infected your dictionary that does not make it so. Even Marx did not use that definition, but the original about deciders being the agents of those they decide for, and thus responsible to them. If you are looking for origins in writing you can go back to the New Testament and see that was what Jesus was advocating even if the word Socialism was not used in the translation

      In the end it is not the definition, but the thought that counts. Orwellian Propagandists of many stripes may pervert a word, but they cannot pervert the concept. Social – antisocial – Unsocialized – etc all still keep their unperverted definitions and the real definition of socialism fits right in. It is long past time the word was deconstructed and taken back.

  • Billy Solestis

    I’m not taking commentary seriously from someone who not only calls itself “Silence Dogood”, but actually knows no better than to use the phrase “spurn on demand”.

    • Billy Solestis? Should we take your name seriously?

      How about actually making a commentary on what was written and not the name of the author or one phrase.

      Sure, I could nitpick the comma usage and other things, but as a writer, I know it’s hard to get things correct without and editor. Please tell us when you post something.

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

    • US History Intellectual

      Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Benjamin Franklin’s early work. When he was 15, he wanted to write for his brother’s newspaper, but knew his submissions would be rejected since he was only an apprentice. So he wrote letters under the pen-name “Silence Dogood”, whom he described as a widow. “Her” letters were full of advice and concerns, particularly about the treatment of women. The letters, 16 in all, were enormously popular. So the author here is no doubt harkening using the name to invoke the patriotic spirit of Franklin, including his wisdom and acute awareness of society.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

x
Click "Like" to get the latest updates