The Truth Perspective: Does Racism, Sexism, Homophobia etc. Actually Exist?

T.C.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#1
I'm about half-way through the show so far and the team just had a discussion about capitalism vs socialism, prompted by a message in the chat. They were talking about how it could be argued that America could actually be considered socialist.

It just reminded me of the opening section of Roger Scruton's Oxford Union address last year where he talked about the same idea: that because the two terms aren't used in the same way, they're not actually mutally exclusive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUbfMQ91Mps&t=413s


https://youtu.be/KUbfMQ91Mps

"My topic, of course, is extremely controversial and it depends on a distinction - that between the Left and the Right in politics. As you know, that distinction came into being at the French Revolution, where The Left were the people on the left of the King, and The Right were those who were on the right of the King.

"But the words have stuck with us, and I think it's part of the confusion that prevails in modern politics that we still don't really know quite what is contained in either idea.

"A bit of history, I think, is needed to begin this talk.

"My generation grew up with the idea that there's a profound distinction between capitalism, on the one hand, and socialism, on the other. This distinction was emphasised and rubbed into us by, of course, the cold war, and the Soviet Union's claim to be a socialist state in the spirit of Marx. And, of course, it went back to Karl Marx's own writings - and particularly the writings of his disciple, Engles - to try and embrace all of politics in that distinction: The distinction between capitalism on the one hand, socialism on the other; capitalism is failing, there will be a crisis and it will fall, and socialism is the alternative that we are preparing to put in it's place.

"And that's a very exciting and seductive view of things. But I think we must remember that the two 'isms' here, are not in the same category. One is descriptive. The other is normative.

"Capitalism - that word - is used to describe an economic system; one which is based on the free market and private property.

"Socialism was not - at least originally - meant to describe a system because there was no such system in existence. It was a project with a goal: A goal to bring about a different kind of society, and very little effort was put into describing exactly how the arrangements of that society would be.

"So to contrast them, is a bit like contrasting journalism with feminism, you know? As if you couldn't be a feminist journalist - and in fact, as you know, most women journalists are.

"But you can be, therefore, perhaps a socialist capitalist. Indeed, it is a convenient combination because it enables you to hold onto your money and still look good. And I think if you look around yourself at the people who call themselves socialists today, you will be astonished by the extent of their prosperity.

"So I think we should not be deceived by these labels into thinking that we understand the confrontation between Left and Right in these terms."
 
#2
Have you ever read John Flynn "As We Go Marching"? and "The Roosevelt Myth"?. Both books, especially the former, talk about socialism and its link to fascism. For Flynn, Italy was the soil of fascism, Germany was the bad fascism and America, the "good" fascism. You can get both book for free on the Mises Insitute. I personally felt I could have gotten more of As We Go Marching if I had a better understanding of economy. As for the second book, The Roosevelt Myth, it was excellent at debunking the myth surrounding FDR, imo. By the way, both book are very old, they were released in the 1940s, if I'm not mistaken.
 

John G

Dagobah Resident
#3
T.C. said:
I'm about half-way through the show so far and the team just had a discussion about capitalism vs socialism, prompted by a message in the chat. They were talking about how it could be argued that America could actually be considered socialist...

It just reminded me of the opening section of Roger Scruton's Oxford Union address last year where he talked about the same idea:

"Capitalism - that word - is used to describe an economic system; one which is based on the free market and private property...
"But you can be, therefore, perhaps a socialist capitalist.
The show mentioned corporate socialism which is kind of the idea that executives can redistribute wealth to themselves. A caller while acknowledging the problems on the left (Clinton, postmodernism things, etc.) nevertheless linked the left to doing good in a labor union, good for workers kind of way. Even if the left was good in this way (they aren't; it's all kind of just a show for the public now), I'm not sure labor unions long term are good at getting optimal merit based pay for the economy (capitalism).

The caller brought up the left being good at fighting poverty in the world too; they aren't and it would be a tough fight even for actual good leadership (which doesn't exist much outside of Putin). It's like you want merit based pay but with much of that getting siphoned off to pay for a worldwide safety net. Even if you could end corporate socialism/welfare (again you can't at this point), it isn't going to up merit pay for workers if you also want a really good worldwide safety net (which is probably a logistical nightmare concept to begin with). In other words, suffering happens.
 
Top Bottom