The antisemitism quip was a joke. Do you honestly believe that I habitually try to slip silencing slurs into conversations rather than addressing the issue head on? There are many more who avoid original thought and the effort of honestly making an argument. Instead they simply diminish what others write with the trendy words of the day - such as 'lazy' and 'trope'. That's not an argument - it's a get out because you cannot or will not address the points made. It's so easy to rely on trite put downs and platitudes. It's not so easy to think critically and then organise your thoughts into an argument. Posting links to what other people have written is just as lazy - it's another avoidance tactic.
I can imagine that at the time, socialism did seem like a good idea. However it has so spectacularly failed every time that it has been tried that to continue to chase the seemingly unimplementable Utopia must come with lashings of selective vision - whether that be conscious or not. And it seems that the only way that some can reconcile the disconnection is to either claim that:
- That wasn't real socialism.
- Some successful capitalist countries with high taxation are socialist counter-examples.
For the first, Western socialists all applauded those socialist states at the time; they just swivel on a sixpence after they fail.
And for the second, socialism actually means something:
'What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.'
Which is often converted to the 'people' owning the means of production. The 'people' do not own the means of production in any Scandinavian country.
As always, trying to treat an argument seriously is futile.
Doesn't seem to be over-abusive to begin with, although maybe slightly tactless in my view as twitter ain't the place for nuance.
