[lit-ideas] Re: From today's paper

  • From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 03:35:17 -0500

Ursula asks: Why else would 'socialist' be such an inflammatory term?



Because there are enough authoritarian aspects to US society as it exists right now, without adding the notion of socializing. Socialism is inflammatory because it suggests yet another ueber-entity that brings even more monitoring and control. Forget the "socialism-is-bad-for-business" argument. That's not it. It's that things are difficult enough without surrendering yet more power to incompetent officials.

Socialism really boils down to some anonymous doofus in an office having more power over your life than you do. It's Kafka without the fine prose style.

In a more homogeneous society, "socialism" wouldn't strike so many gongs. People would get along more easily, they'd understand each other's motives better, and they'd feel more prone to cooperate for the common good. If some popinjay at the Central Committee (or whatever) went power mad, went paperwork mad, or was just spoiling everything by forcing people to attend tuba quartet recitals in public parks, people would be better able to take cooperative action against said popinjay.

But in a fragmented society, socialism is just an extra set of cleets added to Orwell's jackboot crushing a human face forever.

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: