They Never Give Up

Yet another in the neverending series of articles by leftists trying to revive socialism. I don't want to waste too much time on it, since their arguments are pretty much always the same nonsense. But let's look at a few sentences here and there before I fall asleep.

You know what, I just reread the piece and it's even worse that I remembered. There's simply nothing here to engage the brain. It's the same crude caricature of both socialism and capitalism, filled with ridiculous arguments (did you know capitalism hasn't cured every problem there is yet!) and non sequiturs.

If anyone thinks they see a serious argument here, please let me know.

Columbus Guy says: You want a serious argument? How about this: A man seriously spoken about as a credible Republican candidate for pres supports a statewide insurance mandate.

Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance. . . . If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.
The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.
The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said. . . .
Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.
Hope you're "deemed" what you can afford. (Say, do you suppose you'll be exempted from mandates? Anybody talking about mental health parity in Mass?)

Here's a gem worth preserving in the piece you cited: Ugly as it was in so many ways, the Soviet Union not only spurred imitators but stimulated and sometimes supported resistance movements and, more relevant to us, along with the presence of vigorous socialist movements and ideas it encouraged thinking and acting toward alternatives that would be neither capitalist nor Communist.

Sure, they killed a lot of people, but by God the trains ran (and maybe if we looked at it, most of them were Jews).

And I approve of the ending line: On the road to shaping an alternative, the left might respond with a time-honored socialist insight, namely that "I" only exists within a "we," and that unless we look out for everyone, no one is secure.

No justice, no peace, I always say.

I wonder if the guy who calls for killing off 90 percent of the world's population considers himself a Socialist, or sympathetic to 75 percent of what The Nation calls for? I suppose it's okay, as long as it's properly planned.