Just now I came across a video by Thomas diLorenzo, whom I admire about his expose of Abraham Lincoln. In this video he talks about his new book , The Problem with Socialism (2016), which criticizes socialism. I think his criticisms are worth considering — and I am going to get a copy of his book. Jokingly, he says that his talk could be about how to argue with your Bernie Sanders roommate in college. He defines “socialism”, roughly, as “state managed means of production.” This includes both state controlled industries, as in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela; and what is called Social Democracy, which we have in the United States and Europe. These kinds of Socialisms are to be contrasted with, what in the United States is called, Libertarianism.
Watch this video, but make sure you also watch the next video by Cameron Watt, who contrasts these kinds of state or authoritarian socialisms with “libertarian socialism” or “anarchism.” ‘”Socialism” here does not mean state owned or managed industries, but worker-owned and managed industries; and “libertarian” does not mean private ownership of industries, but refers to a political structure rooted in direct democracy in small scale communities, federated into larger units.
Finally, watch Noam Chomsky’s explanation of how the word “socialism” traditionally has been used to refer to worker-controlled work-places, which is the view of “libertarian socialism.”
Peter Joseph in 2007 created the movie Zeitgeist which exposed religious, economic, and political bullshit. This exposition was expanded into a trilogy, to include biological, psychological, and social misconceptions. There is now a Zeitgeist movement, other movies, and recently a book by Peter Joseph, The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression (2017), which I have yet to read. All this has brought on for him a slew of interviews .
Here are links to some of his movies:
Saying that some claim is bullshit is to negatively appraise the claim. But to appraise or evaluate a claim presupposes that you understood what was claimed. But what is the situation when you don’t understand the claim? There are two possibilities: (1)either there is something amiss with you or (2) there is something amiss with the alleged communication.
Now I don’t know most foreign languages, and when I encounter situations in which people are speaking an unknown foreign language, I know that the problem lies with me. What is said is unintelligible to me because I do not know this language. A similar problem arises when I hear people talking, using a technical language with its jargon, as, for example, physicists or mycologists. (If you do not know what I am talking about, this is because you don’t know what a mycologist is. I have just used some technical vocabulary.) In both these cases, the problem is similar. You don’t understand the language; therefore, whatever is talked about, is, as we say, “Greek to me.” (It’s a foreign language that I don’t understand.)
On the other hand, there are situations in which the problem does not lie with you, but with the communication itself. And this can happen in different ways. One way is to think that someone is speaking in a foreign language — but what you are hearing only sounds like a foreign language — but it is not. Sid Caesar was great at making sounds which seemed like a foreign language — but it was meaningless. Here is an example:
There is also the phenomenon which is called “double-talk.” Even though it seems to be normal English, it contains nonsense words and nonsensical combination of words. Here is an example:
A famous nonsense poem is Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky.” It sounds English because it is grammatically constructed, but some of the words are pure inventions. Here it is:
Sometimes after an allegedly philosophical lecture, a person may say “It was deep. I am afraid it was too profound for me to understand.” My reply could be: “You did not understand because it was intrinsically nonsensical.”
Then there is also the phenomenon of rambling: stringing together unconnected ideas and words. Here is Sarah Pahlin endorsing Donald Trump:
George Lakoff explains how metaphors and frames are used by Conservatives (Republicans?) to win elections, including the creation of think tanks and various media to advance their political agenda. He himself identifies with Progressives and Liberals (Democrats?) and gives pointers about how to win elections. It is clear to me that he is a reformer, meaning that he wants to change things through the existing institutions. I am with him in this regard. But he fails to talk about, or even mention, how the very structure of the American government (as presented in the Constitution) fosters oligarchic rule. Pitting Democrats over Republicans is futile; because given the institutions of mass democracy and the institution of one person ruling as President, Governor, and Mayor, oligarchy and corruption will win.