(May 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The government in Orwell's book did not condemn socialism, it condemned fascism.
Any political word claimed as a cure all if marketed properly can become a monopoly, and a monopoly is the core of fascism.
Every government in the world, in the more oppressive states to the more free states have "socialistic" elements. Totalitarianism in the form of a religious or political party is the problem, not the idea of social cooperation. Otherwise, if all socialism is bad, then we should not have police, firemen, military, social security or public schools.
Speed limits are a form of socialism, it is a social contract that says it is safer for all of us to go this speed on this road to avoid accidents and death, than to simply do whatever we want.
It is impossible in a civil society for some form of government not to form. All governments are a form of socialism. The difference between North Korea and the west is that our "socialism" is not totalitarian and is based on consent, protection of dissent, and the ability to change.
I meant not that the political system condemned socialism but rather Orwell portrayed it as it was stereotyped to be at the time. Stalinism is not true socialism, it is a conservative socialism which would be equivalent to right-wing socialism, an oxymoron in itself. This saddens me as it only furthers the dated perception.
When you say that speed limits are a form of socialism it conveys to me the impression that you have misunderstood what is meant by socialism. Speed limits, insofar as being socially-agreed rules, that appears to be more akin to social constructionism than socialism itself. If this is not the case could you please clarify for me?
