> WS: You did not get the irony, did you?
e-mail tends to strip away irony and similar undertones. Besides, your usual _ex cathedra_ tone of lecturing LOBsters seems the opposite of irony. So there's no reason to expect irony from you. You do not seem to be a humorous fellow at all. In fact, I really don't believe you were being ironic, since your misunderstanding of socialism continues below.
> What I wanted to say by the
> metaphor of Disneyland as socialism that there is such a thing as socialism
> for fools
was it Engels who called anti-semitism the "socialism of fools"? But I don't think anybody on this list sees Disneyland as being in any way "socialist," except perhaps in the Stalinist meaning of the word.
>... Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit,
> but I do get that impression each time people start bashing "capitalism" for
> all social and personal woes they experience. By that logic, the
> disappearance of capitalism into its opposite - socialism I presume - all
> these woes will disappear, the history will end, and we all be living
> happily thereafter.
I don't care what "people" think. When someone responds to _my_ words, I interpret it as a response to _me_, even if it is done in a way (as it should be) to talk to the list as a whole.
> The way I see it, socialism will not eradicate any of these problems, not
> even replace them with better ones, as Doug quoted. People will still be
> hating and killing each other for pretty much the same reasons they are
> doing it know: power, sex, status, envy or fear.
that's your faith.
> If socialism eradicates
> the importance of money in defining social status, other means of defining
> it will be found - look, sex appeal, place of residence, popularity, the
> right accent, hair color - the possibilities are endless.
capitalism isn't about money "as defining social status." It's about giving _power_ to those with sufficient money. It's the power to order people about, to alienate their labor, and to receive surplus-value (something for nothing, as viewed at the societal level) and then to accumulate power.
> If socialism
> eradicates the drudgery of work, the drudgery of idleness will ensue, at
> least for most.
the Marxian idea of eradicating the "drudgery of work" is that work and play will be merged. It's not that work will be abolished.
> If socialism eliminates marketing-centered mindless
> entertainment, then human-interest or fart-joke or kitschy-romance centered
> mindless entertainment will emerge.
My impression is that "human-interest or fart-joke or kitschy-romance centered mindless entertainment" already dominates. You must not watch TV at all.
In any event, socialism promotes _education_ in the old-fashioned "liberal arts" model. If people want kitch after understanding da Vinci, that's fine by me. I don't want elitist snobs imposing their "high culture" on the world. My attitude is that as far as culture goes, "let a thousand flowers bloom."
> What socialism will, imho, do is change the nature of human responses to
> contingencies of everyday life - from more individualist it-is-your-problem-
> approach embedded in the US-style capitalism, into more collectivistic
> let's-pool-risks-and-resources-for-greater-public-good approach that trumps
> individual interests. In other words, more housing coops, less individually
> owned homes, more public transit, fewer private cars, more public ownership
> of means of production and credit institution, less private profits and
> usury, more risk pooling and socialization of benefits, less privatization
> of benefits and socialization of costs, more public goods delivered, from
> health care to insurance to old age support to education to transportation,
> less fabulous fortunes. The nature of political discourse will also change
> form the current popularity-contest circus, to more rational discussion of
> impending decisions in citizens committees and planning commissions.
that's Scandinavian or Austrian (etc.) social democracy. That's fine by me, though the only way you get social democracy is by fighting for something better, i.e., socialism.
> The rest, however, will remain the same.
that's your faith.
> People will still abuse, control
> or cheat on their mates or spouses, they will still berate unpopular or low
> status groups, they will still try to avoid work and responsibility or do
> whatever wicked or stupid things they can get away with, they will still be
> sponging off emotional (if not material, as their material needs will be
> fully met) support of others, they will still derive sadistic satisfaction
> from misfortunes of others, and they still be looking for scapegoats to
> blame for their own laziness, stupidity, and everything that is wrong in
> their lives.
you shouldn't assume that all people are like yourself. This is the standard elitist fallacy, applying self-analysis to make assertions about "human nature." -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles