The Left, the center, and the Orange Right share a child's resentful presumption, after a thousand appropriate scoldings, that they deserve to be right at least some of the time, no matter the facts.

Because otherwise Not Fair.

I didn't read the article, so perhaps my questions are addressed there, but I do have a couple:

- First of all, socialism defined as what? Government ownership of the means of production, or robust social safety net? I suspect for a lot of young people, it's more the latter. Or maybe not.

- Second, why support socialism? Some noble concern for the least in our society, or is there a baser motive involved, such as, "the government should be paying for my college," which is certainly a topic worth discussing.

Lots of yarn to unravel on this topic, and probably some surprising areas of agreement between us old geezers and the young idealists.

Uncle Cridmo, wot's the Orange Right? Google gave me nothing useful.

> probably some surprising
> areas of agreement

If so, I would affirm that you're not geezing hard enough.

Either I with my evidence or fate with its cruelties will shortly instruct these smug little fucks on the worthlessness of their vanities: All of us will pay for their lessons, but they alone will be surprised.

They want to be Sweden, not Cuba. They want to be "mostly free".

Whether that model would work in the US is debatable, but it's disingenuous to pretend they want to be Russia. Maybe a few crazies, but a very, very small minority.

Whether that model would work in the US is debatable, but it's disingenuous to pretend they want to be Russia. Maybe a few crazies, but a very, very small minority.

That sounds like it's probably right, but as Crid suggests, there's still a price to be paid, and the young need to understand they're going to pay in ways they hadn't anticipated.

And by the way, Crid, I can geeze with the best of 'em, and I'd still like to know what you mean by the Orange Right.

> still like to know

It was probably not his original coinage, but Lileks was first to offer it to me, what seems like a lifetime ago.

"... like Snooki-flesh with highlights."

Okay, then, I can live with that! I don't read Lileks as often as I should.

> They want to be "mostly free".

Here's a tight framing of the question...

Because reasons.

> Whether that model would work
> in the US is debatable

No. I very strongly believe that it is not... And Europeans, kept from each other's throats for the first time in six centuries by the American taxpayer's largess and muscle, ought to have the clarity to see how seemingly-socialist miracles happened for their own budgets... That is, under the comfortable American military umbrella.





*Spent time with Mom recently... Arthritis has her fingers, if painlessly for now. But when I think about the lifetime of work that warped them, and their deft touch at the voting booth, the typewriter and every other context, I think *this* woman —and her generation— gave peace to Europe... And did it because it was the right thing to do, not because it was cheap and easy.

"Yes, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are clean, prosperous, and beautiful countries with robust social safety nets."

As addressed here...

Crid, you are not wrong, I have heard people literally comment that we can shut down the mandatory military service because NATO will save us if something happens.

I am against it. Of course, I only have daughters, maybe I'd feel differently if I had sons but I don't think so. This is not a country likely to start a war, it is only for defence.

I suspect for a lot of young people, it's more the latter. Or maybe not. ~ Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at October 31, 2018 10:43 PM

I suspect you're right. They think of Denmark and Sweden as "socialist" when, in fact, they're capitalist with a robust social welfare system; a social welfare system that, to the young and inexperienced, appears to be paid for by "someone else."

...but it's disingenuous to pretend they want to be Russia. Maybe a few crazies, but a very, very small minority. ~ NicoleK at October 31, 2018 10:54 PM

Not really.

They want those who disagree with them to be punished for that disagreement. They want tight controls over speech and expression. They want the things that made Russia into the USSR. They just think it will all be Sweden once implemented.

And Europeans, kept from each other's throats for the first time in six centuries by the American taxpayer's largess and muscle, ought to have the clarity to see how seemingly-socialist miracles happened for their own budgets... That is, under the comfortable American military umbrella. ~ Crid at November 1, 2018 12:02 AM

This is important.

Prior to World War II, Europe was a squabbling collection of countries in a near-constant state of war with each other. Between the beginning of the 20th century and the middle of it, Europeans had fought each other more times than the US had invaded Central America. Most of those conflicts were in far flung places, Europeans dragging the rest of the world into its own internecine squabbles. World War I was basically a family squabble that Europeans dragged the rest of the world into.

We tend to view World War I through the lens of jerky video and black and white pictures - a Harold Lloyd movie or a Keystone Kops serial. But it was a horrible conflict, a slaughter on a scale never seen before. The weapons of this new war were terrible: machine guns, flamethrowers, poison gas, submarines. Civilians were, for the first time, openly targeted by opposing militaries. Cavalry, riding smartly off to war on beautiful horses, was mowed down wholesale as the entire paradigm of warfare was upset in the opening stages of the war.

The 1918 Influenza pandemic coming on the heals of the war and killing millions not already dead from a global war only seemed to emphasize the terribleness of that conflict, the coming of the end of civilization. Most of World War II's leaders had experienced both and blamed Europe for at least one of the two.

FDR set as one of his goals for the end of World War II the disarming of Europe. Only the rise of the Soviet Union caused a later rethink of that policy - even then, the re-arming of Europe was carefully managed to keep the countries from being able to wage war on one another, again.

Under the protection of American military muscle, Europe was able to cut its military spending and develop generous social welfare programs. Trump, for all his pomposity, is correct, Europe now needs to spend more on its own defense and that may mean cuts in the social programs so many Europeans have come to view as their birthright.

> it is only for defence.

I love that.

> it is only for defence.

"...but it's disingenuous to pretend they want to be Russia."

They may not explicitly want that, but that's the road they are headed down, even if they don't realize it. In a way, that's worse: they are driving down that road at 100 MPH without any clue where they are going. Generally, the only effective way to handle situations like that is to let some people crash and then make them examples for everyone else. But in this case, I don't think we can afford the cost of the cleanup.

> it is only for defence.

That's the European attitude toward military strength.

When millenials say "socialism" they mean a wonderful rainbow world where the homeless are given great jobs and college is free. They don't see that many of the homeless are addicts or crazy--even when offered a job they won't or can't take it. Free college is a crazy kind of necessity given that many people going there now are getting worthless degrees, and would cost a trillion dollars. If college costs have been inflating insanely so far, imagine how fast they would rise if given a blank check by the government.
I blame laziness and the fact that few of these people have ever had a job where harsh realities of the physical world were present. For example, I painted houses in college, which was a real therapeutic time for me as wasps swarmed around my head. These kids have maybe worked at Starbucks--not real.
The other cause of this sickness is the social justice emphasis on "fairness" rather than hard work. "Fairness" is something you want to magically happen in society (ie, other people have to do it) and is much easier to demand than your own hard work, which is...hard.
Finally, they have not yet held a job where you have to pay actual taxes. I am far from rich but my tax burden (income, sales, property) is upwards of 35% of my income. That really hurts. Causes me to wish the Tea Party was still around.

...because NATO will save us if something happens. ~ NicoleK at November 1, 2018 2:00 AM

Let me fix that one for you: "...because The US will save us...."

No other country has invested in military training and logistics the way the US has. Canada's prime infantry unit is now a light infantry unit, having been downgraded from mechanized infantry due to its inability to maintain its vehicles. Its most storied and elite unit only receives 49 rounds per soldier per year with which to practice.

The US military learned the hard way and now leads the world in its ability to deploy and maintain troops, both at home and abroad.

If your troops lack food, equipment, and ammunition then they're useless, even if they are "only for defence."

US logistical ability has ferried and supplied NATO forces in hostile environments the world over. A Belgian colonel admitted to a Newsweek reporter during the height of the insurgency in Iraq that only the US Air Force could preform the tricky no-light night landings at Bagram necessitated by insurgents shooting missiles at planes landing with lights; no other NATO country had the training, experience, skill, or equipment.

John Keegan reported in his The Iraq War the spectacle of US logistics capabilities awing observers:

British observers who travelled with the Americans have testified to the awesomeness of the spectacle. “The armor had halted,” a British colonel described to me, “dozens of vehicles abreast in the first line and dozens more in the lines behind them. Suddenly out of the dust appeared every logistic vehicle you can imagine, tankers, water bowsers, ammunition trucks, mobile repair workshops, ration trucks. As they stopped, crews began connecting up hoses, hoisting pallets, throwing off crates. The contents were seized by the combat troops and disappeared inside the fighting vehicles as fast as they could be stowed. Sooner than you could imagine, the combat echelon was re-supplied and ready to move forward again.” Re-supply, quite as much as firepower or air support, was to be the secret of the coalition’s overwhelming of Saddam’s forces.

And resupply is the secret of any army's effective operation, in defense or offense.

A follow-up to my 3:19 post:

A US tank commander was asked during one of the Gulf wars if his training had been tough enough to prepare him for the war. He told the reporter that his training had been tougher than the actual war, "We died at Fort Irwin so we could survive out here."

49 rounds a year? Think their training will prepare them for actual fighting?

The correct phrase in any case is not "capitalism" but "free enterprises" to contrast it with planned and controlled economies.
Any millennials who plan to be doctors or dentists in private practice: free enterprise.
Want to be artists or musicians: free enterprise
Dream of opening their own specialty coffee shop or artisanal bakery: free enterprise
Want to be a consultant: free enterprise
All of these things are based on the individual taking initiative and often borrowing money (hence the "capital" in capitalism) to make their dream a reality. In socialism you are not allowed to do this. The government does it. If millennials deny this, then they are using words wrong.

When millennials say socialism they mainly think "Safety net". Their professors/teachers and ringleaders, think one step closer to Russia, but this time I'll be in charge so it will work. They also have been taught that we don't have a real safety net.
Once they are in that mindset, the terms get blurred which makes arguing against it much harder. because those for "socialism" can change what it means whenever they are losing an argument, only to change it back 5 min later.

One thing to bear in mind is that many places with free or very cheap Uni severely limit the enrollment, with kids getting tracked off in their early teens to a professional or vocational track. Those kids don’t do college prep, they do apprenticeships.

Not saying it is a bad system but it is not free uni for all

The Scandinavian economics debate always reminds me of the possibly apocryphal story: Norwegian diplomat smugly asserts to US diplomat "In our country the poverty rate is only 3 per cent. What's wrong with your country?". US diplomat replies "In the US the poverty rate of Norwegian Americans is also only 3 per cent".

As for the Sandersnistas, I would describe Bernie himself as a Nieman Marxist.

Also with the Scandinavian Universities they limit the majors, want to do gender studies, ehhh out of luck.

"Nieman Marxist"

I'm stealing that.

I've stopped thinking of socialism in purely economic terms, though of course the economics of it, made into daily reality, would horrify the people who think they want it.

I think of it as a more totalizing ideology today: It's not just "the people control the means of production," it's "the people control every aspect of life, because of course the personal is political."

I know people who believe "the personal is political," and it's the most terrifying phrase out there even if it has become a cliche. I'm not a Trump fan, but I'll tell you this: There is no aspect of my life that Hillary Clinton doesn't think she has a right to meddle with. The students who shout down speakers on other people's property (they don't actually OWN the university campus, you know), or the people who believe math = white supremacy? There's no aspect of YOUR life that they wouldn't meddle with, either.

"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." That sums up the elements of fascism, and it's clear to me that it's the ending place for today's thoughtless "socialists."

"Nieman Marxist"

I'm stealing that.

Cousin Dave at November 2, 2018 7:16 AM

Too late, I already liberated it for the use of the proletariat.

Maybe this is what happened to them.

John Candy

Once they are in that mindset, the terms get blurred which makes arguing against it much harder. because those for "socialism" can change what it means whenever they are losing an argument, only to change it back 5 min later. ~ Joe j at November 1, 2018 5:33 PM

I took a class called, "Political Economics," in college (late '80s). It was billed in the catalogue as an examination of the effects of political systems on the economics of a nation. In reality, it was Communist indoctrination.

The text book was almost a comic book, a cartoonish version of "Communism for Dummies" with the stock character "Dupe Dagain" trying ineffectively to defend capitalism, only to be proven wrong repeatedly by the narrator with cherry-picked facts and decades-old data.

We were subjected to a professor who railed against capitalism and extolled the virtues of Communism - in the same sentence denigrating the Soviet Union for not doing Communism right and praising it for being a "worker's paradise."

You couldn't debate him because the very argument of his you were rebutting, he would deny ever making.

I did learn something from that class. I learned how Lefties think, how their thought process works; how they argue and why you'll never win a debate with a committed Leftist.