3 thoughts on “Why is socialism – literally – in Vogue?”

  1. Posted 18/07/2018 at 12:12 | Permalink

    An excellent piece. To target this red (literally red) herring about “democratic” control: socialism subjects individual and transactional decisions to state control; and even if this control were expressed by the vote of some assembly, it might not reflect the popular will. More importantly, even supposing such a decision was brought about through a mass, popular vote on every occasion, it would still be oppressive: the tyranny of the majority. You can see this in action in state schools: when spontaneously forming groups wish to pursue a sport, stage a play or engage in debate they are often prevented on grounds of “anti-elitism”. Socialism is merely the art of perverting the mechanisms of democracy against individual liberty, which means the “democracy” is nothing but a sham. This is the point with which to slam our “nouveaux pauvres”.

  2. Posted 18/07/2018 at 13:54 | Permalink

    ‘How would “the people” manage “their” economy jointly?’,you ask.

    Why the quotation marks around “the people” and “their”? The economy in aggregate belongs to the people in aggregate. It is the common wealth.

    To answer your question the political representatives of the people need first to hammer out a definition of terms – ‘ownership’, ‘property’, ‘real property’, ‘capital’. They need to look not to Marx but to Henry George. Parliament in the UK has recently re-defined the socially fundamental word ‘marriage’ (rather foolishly in my personal opinion but most others think differently). Economically fundamental words need similar treatment.

    For example: the term ‘landowner’ as currently understood is surely an oxymoron; again, ‘capital’ is wealth that can’t be consumed which is used to produce other wealth that can be consumed.

    Once these terms are defined and clarified then the political representatives aforementioned have a basis to decide what rightly belongs to the community and what to the individual economic acter. That allows it to set equitable taxes that recover the former in a way that doesn’t distort supply and demand. “Keep what you make and pay for what you take”. Once criteria for deciding who is the true owner of an asset or resource and what that ‘ownership’ means then the tired old see-saw with socialist at one end and financial capitalist at the other can be left to creak and squeak no more.

  3. Posted 27/08/2018 at 10:00 | Permalink

    Elections are handled solely by the media.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.