Melvin once again shows his ignorance Part II

by Bill Stodden

Tuesday, 28 August 2007 14:11:06 -0700

While I can't say I approve of what Melvin said about you being stupid, I have to ask, where did you come up with this one about Social-democracy? Whose rhetoric is this? It fits you like a pair of underoos which is WAY too small.

---

--- Stancel Spencer wrote:
I especially strongly oppose social democracy as it is a form of capitalism insidiously posing as socialism.

---

My problems with this sort of statement are many:

1) Where is it a demonstration of a form of capitalism? I mean- and here is one of the main reasons why (while I don't like welfare statism) I do not equate social democracy with capitalism per se- while the social democrats may be fine with keeping the same old system in place (for the time being, or even for the foreseeable future), they do seek reforms to capitalism, to eventually mitigate its corrosive effects. In other words, they will eventually take out of capitalism what makes it capitalism, that being production for profit, exploitation of the working people for the benefit of those who do not work, etc etc... The same things you and I want in an economic system. Nowhere do they seek to replace the capitalist system with more capitalism.

In other words, they may have different methods, with regards to the economics of the country than you, or I, do and may advocate a different method with regard to political revolution, but I think in general they are going the same place, and just want to see it done slower and more democratically (in the liberal sense) than, for example, I care for.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY, as a matter of why they are not equal with capitalists, real capitalists are afraid of social democrats, and in countries like Sweeden (I mean welfare states in general) the capitalists are in such a position where they have had to yield some ground if they want to have a seat at the table at all. Capitalists do not like Social Democrats, any more I think than social democrats like capitalists. If they REALLY were the same thing, capitalists would have no problem with social democrats. For the same reasons a REAL social democrat is obviously not the same thing as a "revolutionary" (read "scientific") socialist. It is obvious that you all do not like them.

So where do you get this rhetoric?

2) How are they insidiously trying to pose as socialists? Where is the evidence of such a conspiracy? What would social democrats, who (because of their success in welfare states) already have some degree of power, gain from calling themselves socialists, who really have no power anywhere? What is the benefit of a true social democrat saying "OK, I am a socialist." That person would not get voted in anywhere, not by socialists and not by people who are afraid of socialists.

I say you should take, at least, Dwight Welch at his word when he says he is a socialist, because there is nothing for him to gain by saying that if he didn't really believe it. He may not be the same kind of socialist you are, but I think, because he gain nothing by lying about it, at the very least, he is what he claims he is. In other words, there is no motive for most of these people to claim to be socialists if it weren't really true.

I mean, unless you think it is some romantic thing to call yourself a socialist, like that will help you win friends or impress people. It sure doesn't have that effect with me, in my personal experience. Nobody who finds out I am a socialist is like "Oh yeah, he's much cooler than the rest of us, I wish I could be more like him." So what is the motive behind calling yourself a socialist when you really are not one?

I could see why you would want to define the term to include what you believe but exclude what others, who you disagree with, believe; anyone who feels themselves to be in a threatened position will try to do this very thing. But it is not the responsibility of ANY of us to say this person is a socialist and that person is not. I say this because playing with definitions is a far more dangerous activity than being mistaken on how others define themselves.

You should take a little time, Stancel, and find out who is influencing you: look critically at where you are coming up with this stuff, and the ideology you have bought into. And then try this exercise: Make a good faith effort to put yourself in the shoes of those you criticize, and see if your critique legitimately holds up. If it does not, then you must conclude that your critique is at least unwarranted, and at most just plain incorrect. Try it out, a little philosophical exercise never hurt anyone, and certainly will do you a lot better than making a stand and sticking with it, especially on an issue that is ultimately of zero real consequence to anyone.

If you find your critique unwarranted, and find that it came from one of your friends, I would start to question where your friends are leading you, and ask yourself if you really want to go there.

Most serenely,
Bill Stodden

Leftist Internet Broadcasting at its VERY best
It's the Supernova Earth Show