Today's NEWSWEEK cover: "We Are All Socialists Now"

[Ephydriad]

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/2984/42762265ij8.jpg

"Whether we want to admit it or not the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state," Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham and Editor-at-Large Evan Thomas write in an essay opening the February 16 Newsweek cover package, "We Are All Socialists Now" (on newsstands Monday, February 9). Meacham and Thomas write that the America of 2009 was moving toward a European social democracy, even before President Obama proposed the largest fiscal bill in American history. "If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world," they write. (Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/NEWSWEEK-Cover-We-Are-All-prnews-14288492.html))

What do you all think about this development?

[Kassad]

The ruling class needs to continually install parasites in the minds of the American populace. It has been eight years since the attacks on September the 11th and, let's face it. The citizens of the United States have become content with a lot of things. Still, with the recent economic crisis, Americans couldn't care less about the Middle East or a group of Muslims in a cave. They care about their wallets. Every political pundit in America thought that the Iraq War would be the prime issue in the 2008 election, yet it was totally irrelevant in the minds of many voters.

With stocks falling, businesses failing and wallets thinning, the people are in fear. What do the masses usually do when they are afraid? Why, they turn to their government; the ruling elite who caused the problem in the first place. Still, as Neo-Conservative Thought has always stated, there must be an enemy figure for society to be sustained. That new enemy, thought used as a scapegoat for military and political intervention in the 20th century, is "socialism." Regardless of the fact that most Americans and people misunderstand socialism and misconstrue it as government bureaucracy, the corporate media and the wealth oligarchy are doing everything they can to manipulate the English language for their own purposes, which they have done for a very long time. Since the wallet of the average citizen is thinning, they convince the masses that socialism and liberal economic ideologies are based on the requirement of high taxes. The people don't understand a progressive income tax, but it is irrelevant.

It's just another step in the age of fear tactics. As long as the bourgeoisie control the media, the military and the government, it doesn't matter who is elected, appointed or granted control. There is no liberation without revolution.

[Raúl Duke]

I doubt we are moving towards any "social democracy" at all...
How did they reach this conclusion?

[Die Neue Zeit]

They confuse Keynesian progressivism with "social democracy," the latter never having existed in the US.

[Invincible Summer]

It really bothers me when capitalist mouthpieces label anything that's more statist/bureaucratic/welfare state as "socialist."

All they have to do is read like... half a page of Marx and they can find out what socialism really is. But of course they wouldn't be able to manipulate the public into believing that this "socialism" that they're experiencing now is "good."
By taking the word "socialism" and applying to their political situation - which is clearly far from socialist - the actual definition of "socialism" is pushed further to the "extremes" of the political spectrum. Therefore, if someone on Revleft talks about what actual socialism is to a member of the American public, it'll seem even more bizarre and radical than it does now, because what "socialism" is now to them contradicts what actual socialism is.

I'm not sure if I'm being at all clear. I hope someone understands.

[Tzonteyotl]

It really bothers me when capitalist mouthpieces label anything that's more statist/bureaucratic/welfare state as "socialist."

All they have to do is read like... half a page of Marx and they can find out what socialism really is. But of course they wouldn't be able to manipulate the public into believing that this "socialism" that they're experiencing now is "good."
By taking the word "socialism" and applying to their political situation - which is clearly far from socialist - the actual definition of "socialism" is pushed further to the "extremes" of the political spectrum. Therefore, if someone on Revleft talks about what actual socialism is to a member of the American public, it'll seem even more bizarre and radical than it does now, because what "socialism" is now to them contradicts what actual socialism is.

I'm not sure if I'm being at all clear. I hope someone understands.

Yeah, I see what your saying. It's great publicity for us isn't it? <--sarcasm, of course.

Is this article online? From the title it's obviously garbage. But out of curiosity, I'd like to see how they reason this US turn towards "social democracy" and the path of the "modern European state."

[GPDP]

No, I completely get you. Many Americans are completely confused when it comes to leftist labels like socialist, communist, and anarchist. I label myself all three terms, and almost everyone here knows that all three are compatible. But the average American cannot seem to grasp this, due to the intense indoctrination. In fact, it was only a few nights ago in a chat room that I proclaimed to be an anarchist communist, and some moron indignantly told me that I could only be one or the other, but not both, because the terms don't make sense when put together. Of course, this guy was operating under the assumption that communism = totalitarian government, and anarchism = the complete lack of government in any way, shape or form (i.e. chaos). So of course, he could not understand when I told him that the two terms were more than compatible.

[Tzonteyotl]

In looking for the "we're socialist now" article I came across this on their website:

There Won't Be A Revolution (http://www.newsweek.com/id/183718)

I found it mildly amusing.

[Invincible Summer]

No, I completely get you. Many Americans are completely confused when it comes to leftist labels like socialist, communist, and anarchist. I label myself all three terms, and almost everyone here knows that all three are compatible. But the average American cannot seem to grasp this, due to the intense indoctrination. In fact, it was only a few nights ago in a chat room that I proclaimed to be an anarchist communist, and some moron indignantly told me that I could only be one or the other, but not both, because the terms don't make sense when put together. Of course, this guy was operating under the assumption that communism = totalitarian government, and anarchism = the complete lack of government in any way, shape or form (i.e. chaos). So of course, he could not understand when I told him that the two terms were more than compatible.

Indeed. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if the label "socialist" is co-opted to mean "welfare statist" then it'll make our "true" socialist stance seem even more ridiculous

[Tzonteyotl]

Indeed. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if the label "socialist" is co-opted to mean "welfare statist" then it'll make our "true" socialist stance seem even more ridiculous

I'd say it already has been. I mean, I'm reading the article in question right now and the authors say that the term "socialist" has been a popular critique lately of the "left" (democrats) since McCain started using it in his campaign. LATELY??? They've been calling everything and anything "socialist" as far back as I can remember, haha. Welfare is "socialism" in this country, as Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Rielly and the other pundits have been saying for who knows how long.

Question though. Who runs this Newsweek shit? It's pretty bad writing, with obvious leanings. Reminds me of FOX News.

[GPDP]

The worst thing is, there's not even a consistent definition of socialism in the US, even as a term of derision. Conservatives call welfare state measures socialism, libertarians call ANY government intervention in the economy socialism (even when it intervenes in favor of the capitalists), and liberals try to differentiate themselves from socialists by saying that at least they still believe in personal and "social" freedoms and the market (albeit a highly regulated market), unlike those statist "socialists". It's a fucking jumble, and you never know which definition someone is gonna spring upon you in conversation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Dump "socialism" as a word, folks:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1352293&postcount=45
http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-vs-communism-t98455/index.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

[Tzonteyotl]

Dump "socialism" as a word, folks:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1352293&postcount=45
http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-vs-communism-t98455/index.html

I fail to see the use in changing the name. The pundits will still call it socialism/communism. They'll say -rightly so- that the name is different, but the essence is the same. Then they'll go back to saying anything they don't agree with is "socialist." Besides, as clarifying as it might be, I really doubt people are going to start using terms like "social proletacracy" with regularity. I'm sorry, but it just sounds like overly technical jargon.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I suggested various terms, not just social proletocracy/ergatocracy (some people have complained about it not rolling off the tongue, but of all the neologisms it is by far the most accurate). Besides, I suggest we fight back by calling the bourgeois left wing bourgeois social-statists, just like in the Communist Manifesto.

[genstrike]

Besides, I suggest we fight back by calling the bourgeois left wing bourgeois social-statists, just like in the Communist Manifesto.

I prefer "lame-ass social democrats", "useless left-liberal shits", "Blairite hacks", and (my favourite) "intellectual heirs to the murderers of Rosa Luxemburg" :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, to be fair, when I initially coughed up the term social proletocracy I had the original revolutionary social democracy in mind, but without the class ambiguities. Ever since the labour-credits-replacing-money material factored in, however, the term meant more.

[Ephydriad]

The article in question can be found here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

It's rather brief, but here are the first couple of paragraphs to give you an idea of what you're in for:


The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Sean+Hannity) was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Mike+Pence), the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Barack+Obama)'s nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."
There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

[Mike666]

quite a sensationalist cover :rolleyes: i hate when the word socialism/socialist is misused by Americans

[cyu]

In looking for the "we're socialist now" article I came across this on their website:

There Won't Be A Revolution (http://www.newsweek.com/id/183718)


Quote from article: "Americans might get angry sometimes, but we don't hate the rich. We prefer to laugh at them."

Sounds more like a bandwagon appeal to me. In other words, "You should just laugh at the rich because that's what everyone else is doing." ...kind of like the other headline, "You should be a 'socialist' now because everyone else is a 'socialist' now."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No, I completely get you. Many Americans are completely confused when it comes to leftist labels like socialist, communist, and anarchist. I label myself all three terms, and almost everyone here knows that all three are compatible. But the average American cannot seem to grasp this, due to the intense indoctrination. In fact, it was only a few nights ago in a chat room that I proclaimed to be an anarchist communist, and some moron indignantly told me that I could only be one or the other, but not both, because the terms don't make sense when put together. Of course, this guy was operating under the assumption that communism = totalitarian government, and anarchism = the complete lack of government in any way, shape or form (i.e. chaos). So of course, he could not understand when I told him that the two terms were more than compatible.

Yeah, it's especially tiring when college poli-sci and business majors, having spent their entire summer spamming up the internet with messianic statements about Ron Paul, decide that their selective readings and core studies have the capacity to do what history and economic majors strive for. I have heard quite a few individuals declare that "socialist anarchism" and "libertarian socialism" are oxymorons. If anything, they're redundancies. The stupefied look you get when an "anarcho-"capitalist realizes that a state and a landlord are the same thing is priceless, though. *

* Not that all Poli-Sci and Business majors are so ignorant. I have met quite a few intelligent, reasonable individuals who simply disagreed with our politics. However, in college socialists tend to be art, foreign language, and science majors.

[GPDP]

Yeah, it's especially tiring when college poli-sci and business majors, having spent their entire summer spamming up the internet with messianic statements about Ron Paul, decide that their selective readings and core studies have the capacity to do what history and economic majors strive for. I have heard quite a few individuals declare that "socialist anarchism" and "libertarian socialism" are oxymorons. If anything, they're redundancies. The stupefied look you get when an "anarcho-"capitalist realizes that a state and a landlord are the same thing is priceless, though. *

* Not that all Poli-Sci and Business majors are so ignorant. I have met quite a few intelligent, reasonable individuals who simply disagreed with our politics. However, in college socialists tend to be art, foreign language, and science majors.


Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm a Pol Sci major myself (with a minor in Sociology, but I might change that to a major soon), and though most of my fellow students are left-leaning, they hardly ever go beyond being social-democrats. Most are run-of-the-mill liberals, though there is a presence of real leftists to be sure. Still, to put this in perspective, when the CIA decided to set up a program here on campus, it was not the Pol Sci students who protested the move by far, but rather the English and Art majors.

[DancingLarry]

The Editors of Newsweek loudly proclaiming the arrival of "socialism" in America themselves probably couldn't tell you where the lines: "Arise ye wretched of the earth" and "There is a spectre haunting Europe" come from. But they presume to educate America on "socialism". Sigh.