I don't know whether to laugh or cry. In the course of defending a substitute teacher who labeled President Obama a (shudder) "Socialist," the NY Times Ethicist says this about the "meaning" of socialism:
But while this teacher does not transgress ethically, he does seem to fall short intellectually, offering not deft political analysis but slogans and clichés, something you might announce on your own door. (Do substitutes get a door?) Incidentally, not that the president is one, but how does it defame a person to call him a “socialist” (outside of nutty far-right circles) — a set of ideas many advanced Western democracies find congenial, what with the accessible health-care, affordable higher education and good public transportation? (emph. added - P)
Is this guy naive or can he just not handle the truth? "Socialism" is not concerned with "accessible health care," "affordable higher education" or (HAH!) "good public transportation." The US already has all of those in one form or another. Socialism is and always has been about using the power of the state to redistribute wealth so that everyone is more equal in a dollars & cents sense. There's a big difference between having a robust public sector (not socialism) and having a public sector that is the only game in town (socialism).
This crap about "Hey, we just want everyone to share the wealth" or "don't you like convenient public transportation" is nothing more than a subterfuge that hides the coercive and depressing truth about any real socialist economy. (Frankly, erstwhile socialists like Bernie Saunders or the Ethicist wouldn't last five minutes under true socialism). And, it perfectly suits the shallow thinkers like The Ethicist (who is a comedy writer, for Pete's sake) who like the wise-guy frission of supporting "socialism" while living the good life in Manhattan.
Here is a story about what life is like in a real socialist paradise, where everyone has to work for the State and no one is allowed to leave:
Eritrea, which fought its way to independence nearly 20 years ago, is ruled by hard-as-nails former guerrilla fighters who have held firm to their revolutionary Marxist policies and who demand that all young people work for the government, sometimes until their 40s. Anyone who tries to buck this national program, according to human rights groups, is subject to cruelly inventive tortures.
The story ran in The NY Times, of all places. Does The Ethicist get a copy?
The NY Times writer must not have noticed how Europe is bankrupt because of socialism. Socialism basically rewards sloth and punishes productivity, and ALWAYS FAILS, no matter where or when it is tried. Socialism does not make one's life better or easier or more secure, it does the opposite. If you want to live at a level substantially below what you now enjoy, institute socialism.
ReplyDeleteObama is a socialist, has openly stated that he wants "wealth redistribution," i.e. stealing from those who produce to give to those who don't. Cap and Trade is a socialist scheme to achieve this end, under the subterfuge of fighting "global warming."
Socialism brings poverty to the masses, destroys opportunity and prosperity, and makes every society it touches much more miserable.