I wonder how the concept of "index fund socialism", which seems to mimic parts of the classical definition of socialism (collective ownership of the means of production) without being tied to a particular class interest, fit into this. The various Left proposals to socialize ownership of capitol in some sort of massive sovereign wealth fund seem to both modernize socialism and cling to its (perhaps outdated) commitment to collective ownership of capital rather than simple redistribution.
Sorry to comment over-much, I'll restrain myself more generally—but I forgot to add:
It plays into the question of whether 'socialist' is more useful (as a simple conveyor of meaning, not as a snarl-word) as an adjective or a noun. I prefer the former: I am more socialist than was Joseph Biden, who is more socialist than Mitchell McConnell, who is more socialist than was Ayn Rand, who was more socialist than was Lysander Spooner. There, 'socialist' is measured by the character of the solutions presented for ranges of problems, some involving the means and modes of production and others not.
On the other hand, a straw Old Leftist might counter that 'being a socialist' in the modern U.S. involves assuming a rôle that involves taking some positions that are not intrinsically socialist or capitalist, but have glommed onto 'being a socialist' for contingent reasons—I imagine the Old Leftist thinking that in the proposed 'modern socialism' that tail would wag the dog.
Perhaps unsaid because it didn't need to be said: beside any question of Rightists' bandying-about 'socialist' with inadvertent accuracy, they use it simply because in the U.S. it is a snarl-word, that is a word used not really for conveying information but rather as the command to feel fear, hate, rage, &c..
(One of the best tactics of whoever's doing the QAnon operation: that they used 'pædophile' as one of their enemy-designations, which works as a snarl-word for nearly everyone.)
(I admit, it also serves because in popular culture _anything_ may be done to a pædophile by a Good Guy, it is similar to accusing various Democrats of 'treason' precisely _because_ such can be punished by death, though they seem unaware that this just hasn't usually been the case, other punishments being entirely within the law.)
What do you think about the self-described socialists who try to emphasize either their commitment to, specifically, the working class or how working class they themselves are? I feel like a lot of the PMC discourse last summer was really just people saying "these people aren't workers therefore they *cannot* be left wing." Why are they so tied to the particular 19th/early 20th century definition of socialism?
BOURGEOIS NONSENSE
I wonder how the concept of "index fund socialism", which seems to mimic parts of the classical definition of socialism (collective ownership of the means of production) without being tied to a particular class interest, fit into this. The various Left proposals to socialize ownership of capitol in some sort of massive sovereign wealth fund seem to both modernize socialism and cling to its (perhaps outdated) commitment to collective ownership of capital rather than simple redistribution.
Sorry to comment over-much, I'll restrain myself more generally—but I forgot to add:
It plays into the question of whether 'socialist' is more useful (as a simple conveyor of meaning, not as a snarl-word) as an adjective or a noun. I prefer the former: I am more socialist than was Joseph Biden, who is more socialist than Mitchell McConnell, who is more socialist than was Ayn Rand, who was more socialist than was Lysander Spooner. There, 'socialist' is measured by the character of the solutions presented for ranges of problems, some involving the means and modes of production and others not.
On the other hand, a straw Old Leftist might counter that 'being a socialist' in the modern U.S. involves assuming a rôle that involves taking some positions that are not intrinsically socialist or capitalist, but have glommed onto 'being a socialist' for contingent reasons—I imagine the Old Leftist thinking that in the proposed 'modern socialism' that tail would wag the dog.
Perhaps unsaid because it didn't need to be said: beside any question of Rightists' bandying-about 'socialist' with inadvertent accuracy, they use it simply because in the U.S. it is a snarl-word, that is a word used not really for conveying information but rather as the command to feel fear, hate, rage, &c..
(One of the best tactics of whoever's doing the QAnon operation: that they used 'pædophile' as one of their enemy-designations, which works as a snarl-word for nearly everyone.)
(I admit, it also serves because in popular culture _anything_ may be done to a pædophile by a Good Guy, it is similar to accusing various Democrats of 'treason' precisely _because_ such can be punished by death, though they seem unaware that this just hasn't usually been the case, other punishments being entirely within the law.)
What do you think about the self-described socialists who try to emphasize either their commitment to, specifically, the working class or how working class they themselves are? I feel like a lot of the PMC discourse last summer was really just people saying "these people aren't workers therefore they *cannot* be left wing." Why are they so tied to the particular 19th/early 20th century definition of socialism?
Good stuff
Please could you share some info on the oil panting you featured?