Re: OWS:The Dam is Cracking...
libcharisma reposts some diatribe from a friend:
replacing capitalism with socialism, communism, anarchy, or anything else ... to bring down the West and capitalism
libcharisma notes the contradiction: Libertarianism and Anarchy mean exactly the same thing, one has Latin etymology, the other Greek. What possibly distinguishes one as patriotic and the other un-American?
Nothing. These are meaningless smears. The only point is to repeat these words socialism, communism, anarchy over and over in a negative context until eventually, they generate a visceral response. That recent phenomenon, the jackboot and bellbottom wearing mythological creature, the Nazi-Hippie, serves the same purpose.
replacing capitalism with socialism, communism, anarchy, or anything else ... to bring down the West and capitalism
This is not an idea. It's not anything more than a string of words selected for their smear value. The original quote illustrates my point even more vividly: I pulled the reference to Iran. There has to be some bounds to this nonsense. Anyways, I'm struggling to express myself except by inference. I'll try bold text.
The point is, these words have been so distorted by the propaganda machine, they've lost all meaning. We've been robbed of the ability to express ideas.
I'm disappointed libcharisma chose to respond with an ad-hominem attack on Glenn Beck. But I appreciate the challenge. It's nearly impossible to express ideas and concepts when these words have lost their meaning. I tried, and it was a tedious read. These words, concepts, and ideas are as important as anything to the progressive movement. As an alternative to the distorted MSM, Daily Kos needs to keep them intact. I'm up to the challenge and plunging ahead.
First Communism. Communism is dead. Completely discredited. libcharisma's friend might as well rail against human sacrifice. Worse for me, it means this discussion needs to include historical context. Yes Communism started out as a Liberal idea. Everything on that list started out as a liberal idea: Capitalism, Socialism, Anarchy, also Libertarianism, and Liberty. Well Duh. Obviously Liberal and Liberty derive from the same word. Even if they have opposite meanings in smear vocabulary.
There's so much revisionism. Constitutional revisionism. Historical revisionism. America's origins had nothing to do with freedom from Tyranny. It was all about taxes. It's a bit overwhelming.
Prior to the 18th century. Laws and rights applied only to the elite. The majority of the population were simply considered property, just like livestock: Tenants, serfs, slaves. This system defined the civilized world. Look it up. An English citizen, to this day, is still called a subject. Liberal, derived from liberty, was the radical idea that no human should be equivalent to livestock. Liberty, essentially self-ownership, is a hallmark right of humankind.
These days, the extreme right-wing position is that a slavery system is beneficial, superior?, and certainly consistent with the Bible. But for most of my life, Liberal philosophy was universal. So for the past 200 years, Liberal merely meant not Conservative. And Conservative literally means in favor of the status quo. Consequently, Liberal became synonymous with innovative. By that definition Communism is Liberal. Anarchy is also Liberal. Twist the logic a little, and if you're a Liberal, then you're a Communist and an Anarchist. Those two philosophies are diametric of course. So it's conceptually impossible to be both.
But it makes sense libcharisma. And it's important to understand why it makes sense.
I know this diary is already way too long. Important ideas have already been concluded. But there's still so much to say.
Communism is strictly an economic system. It was implemented by Socialists with utopian expectations. Obviously risky and obviously a failure. Rhetorically, the logical trick should be familiar: Since Communists were Socialists, all Socialists are therefore Communists.
No? In fact, since Liberalism is constrained by its agrarian origins, Socialism extends its principles to the industrial age. Example: The right to own land is extended to the right to own one's labor. With one obvious exception, Liberal and Social philosophies are held universally.
Capitalism is the economic equivalent of liberalism. In pre-Liberal societies, unless you belonged to the elite, any investment returns automatically belonged to your master. The distortion buzz notwithstanding, Anyone who supports the Capitalist economic model is, by definition, a Liberal.
Way way too long. But I'm not done. A Capitalist is not someone who supports Capitalism. That's what a Liberal is. A Capitalist is someone whose income derives from investments instead of labor, i.e. the 1%. libcharisma's friend would no doubt conclude he's a Capitalist because he supports Capitalism. Some remnant of fact persists to remind him that Capitalists are usually very wealthy. And he starts to connect dots that aren't there. See how invidious these distortions have become?
Anyone who disagrees with human ownership (i.e. slavery) is a Liberal. Cut through the distortion, and all Americans are Liberal (with a few noteworthy exceptions).
Easier said than done. The word I'm looking for is lexical. Let me summarize the lexical manipulations:
1. 99.9999% (less one in a million) of Americans are Liberals (Premise)
2. 99.9999% or more Americans support Capitalism. (True by definition)
3. 99.9999% or more Americans are Capitalists (False)
4. A government of Capitalists is a Plutocracy (True by definition)
5. By virtue of universal participation, Plutocracy is the American ideal
Anyone who unwittingly goes from Step 2 to #3 is logically going to end up at conclusion #5. If you're on the front lines, say, arguing with your family at Thanksgiving, don't fall into this trap.
The thing about Plutocracy, we're already there. At least it's not at odds with Liberalism or even Socialism. In fact, a Plutocracy combined with weak Socialism probably best defines the ideals of the current Democratic Party- A position most of us have resigned ourselves to defending. A shift to the right from here is almost unimaginable, but brings me to the conclusion I envisioned a long time ago.
Liberal/Capitalist/Socialist philosophy (respectively):
• Humans own themselves.
• Humans are entitled to own investments
• Humans own their labor
Alternative philosophy Feudalism, Communism, American Conservatism (respectively):
• Humans are owned by Aristocratic masters
• Humans are owned by a state collective
• Humans are owned by corporations
Let's be honest. We really need to get control of the debate here. Nuff said.