To begin with, if Mr. Sartwell were keeping up with what young, and not so
young, socialists are saying these days, he’d know that not everyone is talking
about state socialism as he has read about it. People are talking about all
kinds of models with a lot of emphasis on small cooperatives. And if he
understood how Capitalism works, as opposed to the theories proposed by Marx,
he’d know that a Trump could not be elected in a country in which economic
elites didn’t hold the ultimate power because the dynamics which caused his
election, wouldn’t exist.
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Richard Driscoll
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 2:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] How to Argue with a Young Socialist - by Crispin
Sartwell
Carl/Miriam
NB: The following article appeared in the Opinion Columns of the WSJ dated
August 23, 2018. I found it to be interesting and informative. Mr. Sartwell
teaches Philosophy at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa. The link to this
article is included at the end of the article.
How to Argue With a Young Socialist
So you can’t stand Trump. Do you want him to control the universities and run
the hospitals?
Trump supporters argue with Trump critics in Hollywood, Aug. 18. Photo: mark
ralston/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
770
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-argue-with-a-young-socialist-1534973784#comments_sector>
Comments
By
Crispin Sartwell
Aug. 22, 2018 5:36 p.m. ET
If you’re reading this newspaper, you’re probably not flirting with democratic
socialism. But many young Trump-resisters are, so you may find yourself in
debate with an energetic new democratic socialist, perhaps even around the
family dinner table. The socialist-vs.-capitalist debate has a certain 1960s or
1840s flavor, and you may want to bone up on the arguments and find some
contemporary clinchers. Here’s one: The rise of Donald Trump displays exactly
why socialism is a bad idea, in a way that a young leftist can readily
understand.
Defining “socialism” is a classic problem and one of dubious usefulness, but
start here: If the U.S. were to follow the advocates of democratic socialism,
it would involve increasing state control of the economy in many dimensions.
The welfare state would become even more pervasive and activist. Perhaps the
government would guarantee things like universal employment at a living wage,
as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has proposed.
In other words, socialism would dramatically increase the government’s power
and resources while making Americans more dependent on it for goods and
necessities: food, clothing, shelter, education, health care. The socialist
argument runs from the basic truth that all people ought to have these things
to the apparently almost trivial corollary that the state should provide them.
Under democratic socialism, these vast powers and resources would be overseen
by elected officials. But to say the absolutely obvious, Mr. Trump was elected
president in 2016. What would it mean, you can ask your young interlocutor, if
the U.S. were a democratic socialist country and all that power fell into his
hands? What if the Trump administration controlled the universities and ran the
hospitals?
A government that feeds its citizens tells them what and whether to eat. And it
is possible that the U.S. might end up someday with a leader that the
socialists find even more abhorrent than Mr. Trump. So why, you can ask your
young friend, is he so eager to give people he may hate so much more power over
his own life?
This is one reason—one of several—that wanting the state to provide everything
for everyone is simply a terrible idea. It should be obvious to the sort of
people who are putting socialist ideas forward. Those on the left may well
believe that the U.S. is a persistently racist country. They may believe that
“mass incarceration” is an extension of Jim Crow. By this account, a socialist
transition would put an even greater share of the nation’s output—every new
welfare program or power—under the control, at least intermittently, of evil
racists. Why would people with this view be so eager to create the powers they
believe likely to oppress them?
Back in the day, socialism was accompanied by the notion that the whole human
species was on a progressive arc, and that government was merely the citizenry
acting together. Neither of these claims was ever plausible. Without them, the
logic of socialism unravels. If the people who wield state power are no better
or more trustworthy than anyone else, then the arc of history is liable to bend
toward reaction or fascism or oppression. The more powers placed in the hands
of government, the deeper this bend is likely to be.
Americans need to start talking about more realistic ways to provide for each
other, and other solutions or at least reforms are possible. But right at this
moment, with every Trumpian irruption, it should be clear, above all to the
young leftist, that more government power is at least as likely to exacerbate
as to ameliorate injustice.
Mr. Sartwell teaches philosophy at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-argue-with-a-young-socialist-1534973784
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
www.avast.com
Attachment:
~WRD007.jpg
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
image001.jpg
Description: Binary data
