Your presentation of socialism as a heavily centralized system is quite pedestrian and hackneyed. What we commonly call socialist or communist states were in essence state capitalist states, or if you like, red fascist. There is a wealth of reading to be read on anarchist library or even then internet archive, by authors such as Kropotkin, Reclus, and others, and you should read a work by Otto Rühle called, ”The struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against bolshevism” for a more realistic understanding of why they “couldn’t put 2 and 2 together”
"Hackneyed" describes something—typically an idea, phrase, or style—that has become overly familiar or trite through excessive use. When something is hackneyed, it often lacks originality, freshness, or impact because it’s been repeated to the point of cliché. "Pedestrian" describes something as ordinary, dull, or lacking in imagination or excitement. Both terms are consistent. Apparently you wish for me to be original when I speak of socialism. Certainly, if I describe socialism in a completely incorrect way, I will be original. But I am hardly interested in that. I am interested in being correct. I am confused as to why you would make this criticism. Surely we must try to be correct, rather than original, when we employ words in common usage.
As for your characterization of "socialist or communist states" as "in essence state capitalists states", well I completely agree with you! That's exactly what socialist or communist states are: they concentrate all capital in the state, and therefore, as you say, they are state capitalist. But of course this means that they are heavily centralized, because all the capital goes to the center: the State.
I can see what you mean by the term "red fascist" because fascism and communism are very similar. In both cases industry is joined to the State. The difference is that in fascism industry controls the State, and in communism the State controls industry. But in both cases you get (fascist) oppression, because that is what the concentration of power produces.
I have no trouble with claims that fascism and communism must be equally opposed, which is what I understand Otto Rühle was saying. However, I cannot see how this will give me "a more realistic understanding of why [the muckrakers] 'couldn't put 2 and 2 together' " when it came to their preference for socialism. My point was, precisely, that the muckrakers, who meant to fight oppression, didn't understand that betting on socialism would just produce oppression again.
I have not succeeded in understanding where you believe we have a disagreement, or what point you were hoping to get across to me.
Understanding would require that you expand your knowledge of the leftist and soicalist movements that were written about in great detail by such writers as I mentioned in my comment. Consider: why would a socialist/leftist seek to be in a system that oppresses them? were the leftists and anarchists that were purged following the Russian Revolution (after having helped to achieve its success) happy to be purged and was that in alignment with their goals?
Thanks for the reading suggestions. But I don't think it is reasonable to make a comment that others don't understand and then tell them that one must read an entire literature to understand your comment. I think it should be possible to make yourself understood without requiring others to read several books. I suggest you make an effort to reply to my comment above and perhaps we can try to understand each other that way.
I understand that democracy is often used to describe the political system in the United States and western countries in general. However using the term for the United. States elides the fact that our founders expressly did not want a democracy, or "majority rule." They felt that this would result in a permanent minority or underclass. For this reason they tailored the Constitution to have three co-equal branches of government and a system for presidential elections that would prevent the most populous states from determining the outcome of each election, i.e. the Electoral College. Our political system in the US was designed to be a representational Republic comprised of states, in which the federal government would have only those powers that were enumerated in the Constitution. It was designed for the people to be the sovereign power. Also elided is the way that America differs from her western neighbors and allies by virtue of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
While deviations from the constitution occurred as Professor Gil-White details prior to what is called the "Progressive Era," by and large it was the Progressive Era which saw the federal government transformed into a so-called "body of experts." "Progress" and "modernization" were used as a cover for damaging and destroying the check on the enumerated powers of the federal government.
It is a sign of how far we have veered from knowledge of our Constitution that many Americans think we live in a democracy instead of a representational republic that has lost its way and become unmoored from the brilliant founding system of checks and balances. Currently we do not live in a democracy and our Representational Republic hangs in the balance. As Professor Gil-White discusses, Americans have been mis-and under educated about many things; civics and the Constitution is but one of many examples.
Thank you for your comment. I see where you're coming from—technically, the US is indeed a representative republic. However, in everyday conversation, when people use the term "democracy," they're not making a technical reference to a specific political mechanism for giving the citizens power ("democracy" in the narrow sense), but rather to the idea of government by the people ("democracy" in the broad sense). Whether directly or through elected representatives, if the citizens have the power to change their laws and can remove and replace their public servants, the term "democracy" in the broad sense is adequate for conversations that pit citizen power against totalitarian control, and that is the kind of conversation I'd like us to have. So, while the distinction you are making matters in certain contexts, I think in most conversations, when we say "democracy" we're really talking about a system where people have the power to influence their government. When I accuse the US bosses of being "undemocratic" totalitarian psychopaths, what I mean is that they are ideologically opposed to the citizens having any power to govern themselves, by whatever precise means, and willing to commit crimes--sometimes unspeakable crimes--to sabotage and abolish citizen power.
I think it is best not to introduce the technical (narrow) sense of "democracy" in discussions where "democracy" is being used in the broad sense because it tends to produce confusion.
Your presentation of socialism as a heavily centralized system is quite pedestrian and hackneyed. What we commonly call socialist or communist states were in essence state capitalist states, or if you like, red fascist. There is a wealth of reading to be read on anarchist library or even then internet archive, by authors such as Kropotkin, Reclus, and others, and you should read a work by Otto Rühle called, ”The struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against bolshevism” for a more realistic understanding of why they “couldn’t put 2 and 2 together”
"Hackneyed" describes something—typically an idea, phrase, or style—that has become overly familiar or trite through excessive use. When something is hackneyed, it often lacks originality, freshness, or impact because it’s been repeated to the point of cliché. "Pedestrian" describes something as ordinary, dull, or lacking in imagination or excitement. Both terms are consistent. Apparently you wish for me to be original when I speak of socialism. Certainly, if I describe socialism in a completely incorrect way, I will be original. But I am hardly interested in that. I am interested in being correct. I am confused as to why you would make this criticism. Surely we must try to be correct, rather than original, when we employ words in common usage.
As for your characterization of "socialist or communist states" as "in essence state capitalists states", well I completely agree with you! That's exactly what socialist or communist states are: they concentrate all capital in the state, and therefore, as you say, they are state capitalist. But of course this means that they are heavily centralized, because all the capital goes to the center: the State.
I can see what you mean by the term "red fascist" because fascism and communism are very similar. In both cases industry is joined to the State. The difference is that in fascism industry controls the State, and in communism the State controls industry. But in both cases you get (fascist) oppression, because that is what the concentration of power produces.
I have no trouble with claims that fascism and communism must be equally opposed, which is what I understand Otto Rühle was saying. However, I cannot see how this will give me "a more realistic understanding of why [the muckrakers] 'couldn't put 2 and 2 together' " when it came to their preference for socialism. My point was, precisely, that the muckrakers, who meant to fight oppression, didn't understand that betting on socialism would just produce oppression again.
I have not succeeded in understanding where you believe we have a disagreement, or what point you were hoping to get across to me.
Maybe try again?
Understanding would require that you expand your knowledge of the leftist and soicalist movements that were written about in great detail by such writers as I mentioned in my comment. Consider: why would a socialist/leftist seek to be in a system that oppresses them? were the leftists and anarchists that were purged following the Russian Revolution (after having helped to achieve its success) happy to be purged and was that in alignment with their goals?
Thanks for the reading suggestions. But I don't think it is reasonable to make a comment that others don't understand and then tell them that one must read an entire literature to understand your comment. I think it should be possible to make yourself understood without requiring others to read several books. I suggest you make an effort to reply to my comment above and perhaps we can try to understand each other that way.
Thanks for your comment!
I understand that democracy is often used to describe the political system in the United States and western countries in general. However using the term for the United. States elides the fact that our founders expressly did not want a democracy, or "majority rule." They felt that this would result in a permanent minority or underclass. For this reason they tailored the Constitution to have three co-equal branches of government and a system for presidential elections that would prevent the most populous states from determining the outcome of each election, i.e. the Electoral College. Our political system in the US was designed to be a representational Republic comprised of states, in which the federal government would have only those powers that were enumerated in the Constitution. It was designed for the people to be the sovereign power. Also elided is the way that America differs from her western neighbors and allies by virtue of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
While deviations from the constitution occurred as Professor Gil-White details prior to what is called the "Progressive Era," by and large it was the Progressive Era which saw the federal government transformed into a so-called "body of experts." "Progress" and "modernization" were used as a cover for damaging and destroying the check on the enumerated powers of the federal government.
It is a sign of how far we have veered from knowledge of our Constitution that many Americans think we live in a democracy instead of a representational republic that has lost its way and become unmoored from the brilliant founding system of checks and balances. Currently we do not live in a democracy and our Representational Republic hangs in the balance. As Professor Gil-White discusses, Americans have been mis-and under educated about many things; civics and the Constitution is but one of many examples.
Thank you for your comment. I see where you're coming from—technically, the US is indeed a representative republic. However, in everyday conversation, when people use the term "democracy," they're not making a technical reference to a specific political mechanism for giving the citizens power ("democracy" in the narrow sense), but rather to the idea of government by the people ("democracy" in the broad sense). Whether directly or through elected representatives, if the citizens have the power to change their laws and can remove and replace their public servants, the term "democracy" in the broad sense is adequate for conversations that pit citizen power against totalitarian control, and that is the kind of conversation I'd like us to have. So, while the distinction you are making matters in certain contexts, I think in most conversations, when we say "democracy" we're really talking about a system where people have the power to influence their government. When I accuse the US bosses of being "undemocratic" totalitarian psychopaths, what I mean is that they are ideologically opposed to the citizens having any power to govern themselves, by whatever precise means, and willing to commit crimes--sometimes unspeakable crimes--to sabotage and abolish citizen power.
I think it is best not to introduce the technical (narrow) sense of "democracy" in discussions where "democracy" is being used in the broad sense because it tends to produce confusion.