27 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure what the rationale is for “not torturing/killing people is just as bad as torturing/killing them”

Indeed. They are scare words. Many in the US don’t know what they actually mean, and the truth is that republicans love socialism when it benefits them. Loosening regulations is one example - companies are e.g. allowed to pollute more and society as a whole pays the price of dealing with it, with the bulk of the burden falling on the poorer people.

Politicians say “socialism/communism” hoping it makes everyone clench up, but when the actual policies are discussed, honestly, they sound pretty good.

It needs to be emphasized more that bailing out failing companies and throwing public money their way is Socialism.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

You seem to have made utterly zero attempt to understand what I posted here.

I guess you never read 1984.

Apparently, I am not smart enough to understand what you have posted because I fail to see what relevance 1984, which I have read, has to do with anything I have written...

Edited 19 hours ago19 hr by npts2020

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Indeed. They are scare words. Many in the US don’t know what they actually mean, and the truth is that republicans love socialism when it benefits them. Loosening regulations is one example - companies are e.g. allowed to pollute more and society as a whole pays the price of dealing with it, with the bulk of the burden falling on the poorer people.

Politicians say “socialism/communism” hoping it makes everyone clench up, but when the actual policies are discussed, honestly, they sound pretty good.

I think this is very true, and is causing some of the misunderstandings on this site. I think for folks who have not been on both side of the pond, the difference in context is sometimes difficult to assess. And even in the European context, there are differences. In Germany, for example folks wouldn't call social demoractic policies socialist, but instead the term "social" is used. I.e. the difference between mixed economy (which is the reality also in the US) and systemic changes toward collective ownership is clearly delineated, whereas in US rhetoric they are almost fully mixed in common parlance.

1 minute ago, npts2020 said:

Apparently, I am not smart enough to understand what you have posted because I fail to see what relevance 1984, which I have read, has to do with anything I have written..

Okay, let's start with the concept of Newspeak. To save time I'll quote from a Google AI response to the prompt "What is the nature and purpose of Newspeak in 1984"

Nature of Newspeak

Newspeak is a controlled, artificially reduced language designed to replace Standard English (referred to as Oldspeak). Its core characteristics include:

• Shrinking Vocabulary: Words are systematically deleted every year to narrow the range of human thought. If a word does not exist, the concept behind it cannot be named or easily conceived.

• Elimination of Nuance and Antonyms: Complex, independent, or contradictory words are stripped away. For example, words like "bad" are eliminated and replaced by adding prefixes to approved roots (e.g., "ungood" for bad, "plusgood" for very good, and "doubleplusgood" for extremely good).

Purpose of Newspeak

The primary purpose of Newspeak is mind control—specifically, to make heretical or rebellious thought literally unthinkable.

• Preventing Thoughtcrime: In Ingsoc, independent thought or personal identity is a thoughtcrime. By removing words like freedom, justice, morality, or democracy, the Party ensures citizens lack the vocabulary to articulate or even desire opposition.

• Enforcing Orthodoxy and Doublethink: The language forces citizens to accept doublethink—the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously—by merging opposites and removing grey areas.

• Eradicating History: By shrinking how the past can be described, the Party makes it easier to rewrite history and cut off emotional or intellectual connections to a time before Big Brother.

As Orwell notes in the novel's appendix, the ultimate goal of Newspeak is that once Oldspeak is completely dead, any thought departing from Party doctrine will be literally impossible to express or conceive.

Imagine what would happen to chemistry if the periodic table were reduced by criminal law to "H, He, metals"

What would happen to physics if any reference to the discretisation of energy (ie QM) were made illegal?

Now look at what you stated.

On 11/7/2026 at 4:16 PM, npts2020 said:

One of the problems is that words like "socialism", "communism", "capitalism", "oligarchy" etc are defined in such a way as to set off chemical reactions in the dinobrains of many of our fellow citizens, causing no small number of them to be unable to articulate or even follow a logical argument. IMO it is the use of such words, as shorthand for systems that place society ahead of the individual vs systems that prioritize the individual over society in general, does nothing positive for the side of the debate I have seen the majority on this forum seem to take.

If we are robbed of the standard English terms used in sober political analysis, then we are deprived of the ability not only to perform sober political analysis, but even to understand that such an exercise could exist.

This is not a fiction. It happens. You can see the results in this thread. I've made no particular effort to hide my polical opinions, and yet it's clear that there are few here who could distinguish them from those of a Tankie. I'd guess @Sensei and @Otto Kretschmer might but few others would simply because they lacked the necessary language to distinguish them.

O, and since you mention "individualism vs society", Richard Murphy released an interesting take on that this morning.

Enjoy!

44 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Okay, let's start with the concept of Newspeak. To save time I'll quote from a Google AI response to the prompt "What is the nature and purpose of Newspeak in 1984"

Thanks for the breakdown of 1984, Seth.
I've never really understood Catcher in the Rye.
Can you do a similar breakdown of the alienation, rebellion and pain of growing up, in Salinger's book, for me 🙂 .

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It needs to be emphasized more that bailing out failing companies and throwing public money their way is Socialism.

Yeah !
No one complained about when the banks were bailed out in 2009-10.
( and that would be the worst kind of Socialism; almost as bad as letting 8 Million Ukrainians starve, so Joe can sell the grain to help industrialize Russia )
But I guess Socialism is 'un-bad' when it benefits your Billionaire cronies.
( see what I did there @npts2020 ... newspeak )

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

Can you do a similar breakdown of the alienation, rebellion and pain of growing up, in Salinger's book, for me 🙂

Beyond me, I'm afraid. Other than Dick and Asimov, I've never been able to make head-nor-tail of American literature. Just couldn't work out who was supposed to be the good guy.

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It needs to be emphasized more that bailing out failing companies and throwing public money their way is Socialism.

Except when it's a necessary government intervention in the interests of national security. Ask yourself why Churchill was perfectly okay with Ernest Bevin running British industry during WWII.

On 11/5/2026 at 8:45 PM, sethoflagos said:

Oddly enough, a few hours before the Bernie clip showed up, I was thinking about a Wealth Tax and wondered if going as high as 2% per annum might be politically viable. Didn't realise how myopic I was being.

A bit of an issue is that the difficulties of implementing a wealth tax is that in practice they tended to have issues, and I am not sure whether there has been enough work and suggestions to address those. From what I have read there is possibility that inheritance and corporate tax might be ultimately a better way for redistribution, but I have not read in-depth about that to really have an informed opinion. That being said, I the public discussion is even more superficial than that and really is more about ideology than mechanism.

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

A bit of an issue is that the difficulties of implementing a wealth tax is that in practice they tended to have issues, and I am not sure whether there has been enough work and suggestions to address those. From what I have read there is possibility that inheritance and corporate tax might be ultimately a better way for redistribution, but I have not read in-depth about that to really have an informed opinion. That being said, I the public discussion is even more superficial than that and really is more about ideology than mechanism.

Since wealth is an umbrella term for buildings, land, investments, and money, and each behave differently when leveraged, treating it as a single thing does seem problematic. As I understand it, the UK could make significant progress by introducing a land tax, and making the existing property tax more progressive in nature. Taxing investments tends to have an immediate adverse effect on growth, and money just disappears all too easily into offshore accounts.

The concept could maybe become significantly easier with international collaboration, but that's hardly a runner as things stand.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Since wealth is an umbrella term for buildings, land, investments, and money, and each behave differently when leveraged, treating it as a single thing does seem problematic. As I understand it, the UK could make significant progress by introducing a land tax, and making the existing property tax more progressive in nature. Taxing investments tends to have an immediate adverse effect on growth, and money just disappears all too easily into offshore accounts.

The concept could maybe become significantly easier with international collaboration, but that's hardly a runner as things stand.

I think you have nicely summarized the main challenges I have read about.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think you have nicely summarized the main challenges I have read about.

There are national differences. The UK tax authorities are okay with me drawing a pension below the taxation threshold in the UK without reference to any income I might receive from my activities in Nigeria. The IRS are not so lenient with American nationals. Their reach is global, much to the chagrin of some of my drinking buddies over here.