Talk:Socialism/Is it a thing of the left?

Typo

Interesting essay. I did, however, notice this typo: "Apparently the manufacture enough manhole covers to solve the problem put too much strain on the communist economy". Was this supposed to be "Apparently to manufacture enough manhole covers to solve the problem would put too much strain on the communist economy"? Heavy Water (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"And you look for fastidiousness in every gay man you know meet". Was there supposed to be a backslash between "know" and "meet"? "I suggested we stop and speculate about to approach this problem," by which I think you meant, "I suggested we stop and speculate about how to approach this problem." A very interesting essay, by the way, and the article now calls socialism only left-wing, citing Britannica. Heavy Water (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

America's political idiom

@Guy vandegrift:

Political media in America is designed to sustain a polarized middle class, and this includes the content and structure of social media and message boards like Reddit. A false political dichotomy provides the illusion of choice and also acts as a credible pretense for politically/economically convenient changes in policy that might otherwise be difficult if the powers that be had to commit to a specific set of principles. Orwell wrote "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality."

Our politicians are not ideologues with differences of opinion, they are essentially actors. The political efforts of America's middle class are wasted so long as they subscribe to these contrived and illusory factions. Leaders, officials and public servants should be judged by their decency of character, honesty toward the public and ability to lead. Domestic policy and law must be judged in terms of the public interest, and foreign policy must in general be non-interventionist. It is wrong to impose. Notice that the media is almost entirely devoid of substance and generally uncritical of business and foreign policy. The subject of any given political story or article is typically a faction or a politician. Trump did this, Biden did that, the GOP, "antifa", "maga" etc., all variety of meaningless, irrelevant nonsense that has no bearing on realpolitik. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, one should avoid attempting to characterize "the left", "the right", "communism", "capitalism" in an intradiegetic sense. To do so would reinforce the media's narrative and associated tropes/archetypes. These words are so heavily burdened by their connotations and their tendency to put people on the defensive that they are all but useless for productive discourse. In order to make reasonable judgements and express them well, it is perhaps better to consider and describe the set of principles that one values rather than use the media's archetypes as a substitute for identity and a basis for allegiance. Personally, I try not to talk about "left","right","democrat","republican" and so on as political ideologies, but instead as rhetorical phrases in and of themselves. I do plan on incorporating all this into an essay once I have the motivation to get it all into the right wording. People take the political idiom for granted and if it is our object to disabuse them of this illusion then we must speak in extradiegetic terms, that is in a manner external the media's political narrative. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

@AP295:

Your insights are a valuable contribution to this discussion, especially in pointing out that labels like "the left", "communism", and even socialism are meaningless labels unless they are carefully defined within a specific context. I will take the liberty of adding your comments as an essay. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift:

The greater point is that that the two-party system as it presently exists is not based upon ideological differences but a conscious and deliberate effort to defraud the public. The media promotes different factions and archetypes, and people are attracted to the one they identify most strongly with, while neither truly represent the interests of America's middle class. The public is encouraged to "vote for the lesser evil" and in doing so they can be made to condone just about anything so long as the alternative appears of a sufficiently "greater evil". For decades there has been an ongoing concentration of media ownership that has resulted in something worse than a state-run media. The fallacy that most people commit is to believe that the media stands more to gain from truthful, salient journalism and reporting than from representing private interests. Until these fraudsters are routed out there's little use in opining about democracy, socialism, etc. because the media has made an undignified farce of it. AP295 (discuss • contribs)