Socialism Reattempted

I have been working on a political cartoon that would portray, in a picture, the sheer ignorance of certain “political correctness” and “virtue signalling.”

I use the word “ignorance” because it is the most spiritual way of stating another brother or sister doesn’t know what the -bleep- they are talking about. It is better to call a politician “ignorant” than a “liar”, when they promise everyone free cheese mined from the moon.

Truth is beauty, but ignorance is the lack of Truth, and tends to create ugly consequences. The way to solve problems is through Truth, albeit often solutions appear in a slower and more painstaking manner. Ignorant promises of quick-fixes may draw a crowd, but the happy crowd becomes an unruly mob when the promises are revealed to be lies. Then the ugly mob requires policing, and all too often what began as benevolent promises deteriorates into brutal oppression. (For example, Venezuela.)

When one has been sold a shadowy snake-oil, there is a sad moment when one realizes the stuff doesn’t work. It is during such times Truth may be called “cruel.” Also there may be a period when one undergoes disbelief and denial. During such times ignorance takes on a life of its own, fighting for its very existence, like a shadow attempting to avoid vanishing in a beam of light. Ignorance can then become dangerous, like a cornered rat, but also comical, for there is something humorous about the sight of a person attempting to cling to a shadow.

For example, when I have studied long and hard to glean some tidbit of Truth, (for example about Arctic Sea-Ice), I find it comical when some young whippersnapper, who knows nothing about the topic, acts as if they know more, and furthermore claims I should be censored. In some ways they work harder to censor Truth than to know Truth. Such behavior deserves a cartoon.

In order draw out the humor and create a cartoon one needs to adjust the contrast, placing events together in a way that reduces ignorance to absurdity. While I haven’t worked out the details, I have been toying with the idea of comparing the 1968 Democrat Convention with the 2020 Democrat Convention, and guessing what young Democrats outside the convention might protest about, concerning the politics of Democrat higher-ups, inside the convention.

In 1968 Democrat policy had us in the Vietnam War, but the young Democrats, who faced being drafted and being forced to fight and perhaps die, were demanding a reason to die, and refusing to fight without reason, but rather than reason they were attacked by the police of the Democrat mayor of Chicago, whereupon the youth began chanting, “The whole world is watching.”

In 2020 Democrat policy seems at least as ignorant as 1968’s, and it occurred to me young Democrats might be equally frustrated, but have a different chant outside the Democrat convention. This time it might be, “The whole world is laughing.”

(For in my eyes the lack of Truth involved among Democrats makes much, spoken as gospel by the “Politically correct”, appear so ignorant it sounds like the soliloquies of Shakespeare’s fools. But modern youth are not always the fools their brain-washers assume, and already bristle at some of the ignorant suggestions they are asked to swallow, if they are to be “Politically Correct”.).

My personal cartoon of this situation would have 1968 and “The whole world is watching” on a first frame and 2000 and “The whole world is laughing” on the second, but lots needs to be worked out. I’m not sure I’ll ever get the details of the picture right.

Therefore I was glad to see a fellow did get a lot right, and displayed, in a different way, the joke of “Political Correct Ignorance”, at least in part:

7 thoughts on “Socialism Reattempted

  1. Ah yes, once again the “opinion” word truth. I have been looking at words lately, and came to the realization that a lot of words we take as having real meaning are, in fact, opinion words. Consider “peace.” Is it really only “the lack of war,” or is that merely an opinion, or is it something much deeper? Good question. It all depends on your opinion of the word.

    And then there is “truth.” what exactly so defines the word that it is NOT an opinion? Consider the blind man that has touched boards all his life, and has been told over and over that a particular texture is “blue.” As he runs his fingers over a red board with the same exact texture, he declares that the board is blue. And that is the truth.

    So where does that leave the word “truth?” In the pile of opinion and experience, and experience is built on what you have been taught. Of course, that also applies to “ignorance,” since it is entirely dependent on the sum total of experience and teachings. No man is necessarily ignorant because he has not learned what some people would call the true nature of learning. Sometimes it is the learned person that, in fact, is ignorant, since what he learned was not truly accurate.

    So perhaps it is better to consider our actions in the realm of opinion and possibilities, rather than in the realm of “truth,” and that the lack of it meeting our personal opinion and knowledge beliefs defines another as ignorant. One really never knows, as the emperor walks down the street, if he truly is naked, nor do we know for sure, that those watching are truly clothed.

    Isn’t waxing philosophical fun?

  2. So maybe we should explore the word “FACT”.
    1. The board is red.
    2. All of the emperor’s body is visible (to the naked eye?).
    3. Socialism has never worked.

    • Has it ever occurred to you that actually, socialism DID work? Whether you like Hitler’s Germany or not, his form of “national socialism” sure as hell did produce am amazingly effective and affluent country. Whether or not some supposed aspect of his policies is perceived as bad, the data suggests that national socialism was definitely successful until the war.

      Do not assume that because communism is often confused with socialism, that socialism doesn’t work. Given the opportunity, there is actually no system that can’t work, just those that are hijacked by individuals, normally for personal aggrandizement that always fail, including “democracy.”

      • Hitler’s national socialism was doomed to failure from the start, and anyone who studies economics is well aware of its stupidity. Largely it was dependent on piracy. The “effectiveness” was largely due to exploiting the patriotism of a hardworking people, and in terms of actual money Germany was not “affluent”. Hitler created the illusion of affluence with full employment, and “funded” it by breaking financial agreements, and confiscating huge amounts of money that wasn’t his, and by bullying loans from intimidated rich people. There was no way he could pay what he owed, but he never planned to pay anyone back (unless you include the pay-back of revenge.) He got-the-jump on other nations by rearming for all-out war while other nations craved peace, and being ready for war when others were not. But once others woke up to the game he was playing, and played by the same rules, he brought terrible ruin to his people.

        Pirates may amass treasure by robbing the just, but they find themselves so hated they have no place to spend it, and end up burying it in the sand.

        I must say this, Tom. I feel you look at Hitler through the rose-colored glasses of revisionist history.

        The only example I can find of socialism working is in The Book Of Acts in the Bible. Then it works because, rather than patriotism being invested in a worldly despot, it is invested in God.

  3. Is our American economic life so ingrained in use that we are capitalist by habit rather by thoughtful consideration? Have we been making the best of a lesser economic possibility by a series of adaptations that overcome its weaknesses to the extent that we have managed to achieve only a modicum of success from it, when a better approach lies within reach? Is it the fault of monomaniac or simply misled foreign potentates that Socialism has not shown its heels to our mediocre system?

    Here is a fellow that thinks Socialism has not been given a fair consideration by Americans, and says that it has not been the failure some would have it to have been. Glenn Sacks in the Daily Caller,

    One difficulty I have in the matter is getting a clear definition of just exactly when economic activity is socialistic and when it is capitalistic. Economic activity seems to consist of producing goods and services that reach a using population regardless of the overlying organizational structure imposed by the prevailing society. The guy, Sacks, complains that the failures attributed to socialistic economies was really due to the individuals in charge, not the system of a planned economy geared to meeting human needs, not profits.. The idea here is that profit is at least not a human need. That is that we as human beings have no business in an increase of product above need.
    Also embedded in t his notion seems to be a judgement that the socialistic system is capable of determining what such needs might from their remote central fastness without significant error and be capable of quick remedy in that event.

    A secondary cause of previous failures he sees as a clumsy burdensome bureaucracy also the fault of the people at the top. I wonder how Mr. Sacks expects to eliminate such a impediment to economic efficiency with a layer of control over economic activity personally remote to and uninvolved in the actual activity therefore unqualified to interfere? .

    Sacks makes some arguments in favor of his position;. but, even accepting his economic claims, did the people in China and Russia perform their achievements entirely absent of profit? If someone profited by this activity, then it was by definition a capitalistic achievement under the guise and somewhat relaxed thumb of a planned centrally directed economy.

    What I have remarked upon here certainly does not exhaust the available observations to be made. Central planning has a way of putting too many eggs in one basket, a basket unequal to the task.. .

    • I think you and Sacks both have misunderstood the desires of society and the systems that evolve. The driving force is not “profit,” the driving force of any system, including successful capitalist systems, is increasing the quality of life. That was the driving force behind Hitler’s “national socialism,” not “central control” over all aspects of society. Gadhafi, in Libya, certainly used central control to some degree, in building Libya from the backwards nation that it was to the first rate nation it was before the west destroyed it. Here again, the driving force wasn’t personal wealth, regardless of what the MSM might say, since he lived in a tent until every Libyan had a house or an apartment. It was raising the quality of life for the society, and that, too should be the desire of “western democracy.”

      Unfortunately, every time there is a successfully executed form of socialism, it is destroyed since “western democracy” pales in comparison. Western democracy has produced vulture capitalism instead of capitalism as well, so even that fails to be able to be properly compared. Republicanism, on the other hand, did produce a nation where quality of life increases was a concern, but when hijacked by “democracy,” and taken over by oligarchy, it, too, has failed, nearly as badly as did communism.

  4. Caleb, give me your references since I have never seen anything you say about Germany pre WW2 in any history book that I have ever read, I won’t argue with you because, 1.) this is your blog and 2.) without references I can look at, your words are your words. Revisionist history is hard to determine since neither you or I lived during those times and we decide who we feel is telling the truth. I take Patton over Eisenhower, and Joseph Kennedy over Roosevelt. You can choose who you like. And almost as important – and maybe more, really – is what you choose to be the truth, for truth is not something that is carved in stone and immutable, it is what you decide to accept it to be. And on that one word alone, we will never agree since you appear to perceive it as something that can be absolutely proved. Enjoy life, ponder on, think what you choose, write what you remember, and above all, don’t worry about further comments. There won’t be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.