Again with the desperate attack on my degree focus. I started as a double-major in political science and English, but when I transferred to Ohio State, the poli-sci department had a significantly different requirement track from the one I had at my former university and, thus, I dropped it down to a minor. It isn't worth my trouble to spend another year as an undergraduate when I've been dealing with the irritating differences between my original and new general education curriculum. But, yeah, I'm just an English major who cannot possibly have spent several years studying political theory, political history, and constitutional law, right? Oh, and let's just remember that Ohio State has one of the most highly accredited political science departments in the world, just in case you want to say something stupid about me being at a public university.
Anyhow, Dianara, wouldn't it be nice if you were capable of responding without venom and angst? I was correcting a word you used because I foolishly thought that you actually cared about your ability to communicate. I don't know where I acquired that delusion, though, as you tend to say one thing and mean another on a rather consistent basis. I made that post explicitly to say that I wasn't insulting you for your left-wing tendencies and, surprise surprise, you interpreted it as an attack and immediately went on the defensive. The speed with which you become defensive and assume that the word "socialism" is negative says everything that needs to be said about who understands the word. You even completely misread the point I was making about "fascism." I'd quote that great lover of words and politics, George Orwell, on the subject of how people misuse the word, but it'd fly right over your head and you'd decide that I was insulting you.
And, Cruz, I don't think I've ever spoken about the "working class," even though I'm firmly embedded in it as far as economics are concerned. If you really think that credit is based on a bank's available capital, though, you're stunningly naive, and I'm not just speaking about liquid cash here. I philosophically disagree with socializing institutions, but having studied what happens repeatedly when laissez-faire capitalism reigns, I tend to allow it. I really wish laissez-faire would work in the real world the way that it does on paper, but the problem with all of these theories is that they operate from the principle that all actors are, for the most part, honest and moral (ethical, whatever word suits your fancy). Barring that, the strange mix of socialized industry (specifically the service industry) and laissez-faire that has emerged in the US and Europe (and arguably China, though China is more fascist than socialist and, contrary to what we're told, it actually works) seems to be the best solution currently available. I'd rather not be taxed into the ground like the French are, but if that is what it would take so that I can live with the sort of leisure they inexplicably possess, I can think of worse fates.
But if you're trying to suggest that I'm a socialist, I'm not. I'm a moderate and tend to pull from all sides (the term "centrist" worries me, if only because I cannot seem to figure out what it actually means). The "problem" we've been having with illegal immigration is a direct result of having socialized (subsidized) our farming industry. I've no problem with people coming to the US, we've got more than enough space, but I want people to come here who actually want to be here rather than being economic refugees because we crashed the Mexican economy with NAFTA. By the same token, though, the current credit meltdown is a fairly good example of how capitalism can go very, very wrong. The irony is that it was socialist-types who both worked to impose constraints on the capitalists and then, several decades later, strip them away. It all indicates to me that neither system works in the real world.
Oh, a note on terms. When I use the word "socialist," I'm usually meaning what would be referred to in the US as a "social liberal." There's some nuance that I'm steamrolling over when I say that, but after speaking with many, many foreign scholars of political science, I've gotten into the habit of using the word "liberal" more often in line with how everyone but the US uses it, namely, to indicate someone who prefers limited government and laissez-faire policy. It's a queer thing the way that the word "liberal" has become inverted in the US lexicon. The linguist in me finds it interesting, but I suppose the poli-sci folks will be utterly disinterested. Still, I think it's important to know what Europeans mean when they say "liberal."
Anything remotely challenging left?
Sig request *CHALLENGE*
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
Back to top
