mf - story #5266 - I guess it was relev

posted by dennisn on October 4th, 2009 at 7:40PM

I guess it was relevant -- insofar as it shows the wrong-headedness of socialists -- who confuse real (Rand's) capitalism with state-capitalism (read: dictatorship) -- a non-negligible distinction, and the crux of that mises.org article.

The way it portrays socialism by socialists is hilarious. Utopianly ideal and peaceful -- which presupposes enlightenment, abolition of religion and all other non-reconcilable divisive forces. The saddest most pathetic thing I find among socialists (M. Moore, N. Klein, Dave's alter-ego) is their tedious denial of the gun.

Libertarianism and anarchy as described by everyone else is absurd and merely shows their immaturity and insincerity. I don't know where you found this, but I'm willing to bet it was from a popularist/socialist/liberal site that is trying to quell it's restless conscience by rationalizing it's violence as "a necessary evil". (A disgraceful site.)

Link | Parent

posted by Nylorac on October 4th, 2009 at 8:01PM

I got it from DSK. Where else? =)

I completely agree about the libertarian and anarchist diagrams. They *could* work for some people, but it's not so uniformly agreed upon that that's how they're seen. By far, the capitalist and socialist diagrams are the best - spot on, and funny.

My favourite is socialism described by capitalists. "Fuck you, you thief!" Well, that's how I interpret it. There was no consensus on the interpretation.

Link

posted by dennisn on October 4th, 2009 at 8:21PM

Your interpretation of the soc-described-by-caps diagram is exactly correct. How do you figure it's open to different interpretation?

Link

posted by Nylorac on October 4th, 2009 at 8:45PM

Well, I don't. But I showed this image to a lot of people, and got some other interpretations ... that I didn't agree with, so I didn't remember them.

Link

posted by dennisn on October 4th, 2009 at 8:26PM

The depiction of capitalism by socialists is misleading. If they mean the gun is state regulation and corporate-subsidy (corporatism), then sure. But if they mean "denying terrible-propagandized-state-education" is the same as holding a gun to one's head -- that's simply wrong. I guess this kills the joke, but that's reality.

Link

posted by Nylorac on October 4th, 2009 at 8:44PM

>>"denying terrible-propagandized-state-education" is the same as holding a gun to one's head -- that's simply wrong

Yeah, that can't possibly be it.

I want to take the gun as symbolism of the simple unwillingness of the capitalist to share, and the negative view that a socialist would have with that.

Link

That's what I meant -- they th by dennisn on October 4th, 2009 at 9:00PM.

posted by dennisn on October 4th, 2009 at 8:18PM

What would your diagram for social organization be?

Link

posted by Nylorac on October 4th, 2009 at 8:46PM

I can't answer yet because I'm not sure what you're asking for. Do you mean for libertarianism and below? all of them? or something else?

Link

posted by dennisn on October 4th, 2009 at 9:17PM

I guess my question was misleading. OBVIOUSLY you wouldn't (admit to) want a diagram in which a gun is pointed at someone's head. And I guess, in that sense, the diagram does serve a purpose -- ridiculing the gun. Nevertheless, once one points out the gun (the forceful stealing of money from other people, be it for your own defense contractors, or for your own education or healthcare), surely you can no longer support that? (And we agree on the objectivity of the gun, right? Ie. not sharing is NOT the same thing as holding a gun to someone's head, right? (Except in the extreme Proudhonian sense in which a super-evil-monopolist owns all the land, and somehow manages to bring all the others to the brink of starvation, clamouring at the gates of his compound.))

Link

(just wanted to let you know t by Nylorac on October 4th, 2009 at 9:21PM.