Warning! Socialism has a new name: Parecon
The other day I was at Barnes & Nobel, and I happened to notice a book on display titled "Parecon: Life After Capitalism," by Michael Albert:
http://amzn.to/KNf9BP
The term "Parecon" comes from combining the words "participatory" and "economics," and it has at its center the same principle which lies at the heart of both Communism and Socialism: collectivized ownership over the means of production.
I believe this is a blatant attempt by Communists and Socialists to sneak their ideas into public debate without them being immediately recognized for what they are. The Socialists and Communists know that there is too much awareness of and resistance to the traditional labels, and even the more general term "Marxism" is too obvious to fool most of the public. Even the most ignorant and uneducated fool can reject Communism when it presents itself under its true name, not because such a fool understands Communism (he doesn't), but simply because he happens to live in a society that has taught him Communism is evil. But this new term, Parecon, this is dangerous, because it requires that people actually understand the IDEAS behind Communism and Socialism, rather than just knowing the name itself.
The fact that Socialism/Communism is parading around under a totally new name is actually rather frightening to me, as it creates the possibility of converting unsuspecting people who would otherwise be opposed to it, which is exactly what the Communists and Socialists want.
I'm glad I've been reading Ludwig von Mises, otherwise I don't think I would have been able to recognize Parecon for what it is, and I grieve for those poor, lost souls who lack the education necessary to perceive the truth. This is part of why I think it's important to attack the concept of Communism from a scientific point of view rather than a moral one: morals can be supplanted and replaced. Scientific fact cannot.
For those who are interested in learning the actual economic and scientific reasons why Socialism and all its derivatives don't work, you can buy the book "Socialism" by Ludwig von Mises here:
http://amzn.to/1hxz16B
In light of this information, I actually have a suggestion for the producers of the movie. The purpose of the Atlas Shrugged movies is to warn the public about the dangers of Communism and Socialism, right? Well, with the third movie still in production, there is an opportunity to address the new term "Parecon" directly, so that the public knows what it really is. All that would need to be done is have one of the villains, maybe Wesley Mouch, use either the word "Parecon" and/or the term "participatory economics" in a line of dialogue, advocating it as supposedly being a good thing, and then have one of the heroes, either John Galt or Hank Rearden, argue back, pointing out that mass participation in how private companies are run just means establishing collectivized ownership over the means of production, which violates the principles of individual liberty and economic freedom. After all, if everyone is subject to the will of everyone else, then nobody has any freedom. Democracy is a sham, whether it's applied to economics or government. Freedom is the way to go.
http://amzn.to/KNf9BP
The term "Parecon" comes from combining the words "participatory" and "economics," and it has at its center the same principle which lies at the heart of both Communism and Socialism: collectivized ownership over the means of production.
I believe this is a blatant attempt by Communists and Socialists to sneak their ideas into public debate without them being immediately recognized for what they are. The Socialists and Communists know that there is too much awareness of and resistance to the traditional labels, and even the more general term "Marxism" is too obvious to fool most of the public. Even the most ignorant and uneducated fool can reject Communism when it presents itself under its true name, not because such a fool understands Communism (he doesn't), but simply because he happens to live in a society that has taught him Communism is evil. But this new term, Parecon, this is dangerous, because it requires that people actually understand the IDEAS behind Communism and Socialism, rather than just knowing the name itself.
The fact that Socialism/Communism is parading around under a totally new name is actually rather frightening to me, as it creates the possibility of converting unsuspecting people who would otherwise be opposed to it, which is exactly what the Communists and Socialists want.
I'm glad I've been reading Ludwig von Mises, otherwise I don't think I would have been able to recognize Parecon for what it is, and I grieve for those poor, lost souls who lack the education necessary to perceive the truth. This is part of why I think it's important to attack the concept of Communism from a scientific point of view rather than a moral one: morals can be supplanted and replaced. Scientific fact cannot.
For those who are interested in learning the actual economic and scientific reasons why Socialism and all its derivatives don't work, you can buy the book "Socialism" by Ludwig von Mises here:
http://amzn.to/1hxz16B
In light of this information, I actually have a suggestion for the producers of the movie. The purpose of the Atlas Shrugged movies is to warn the public about the dangers of Communism and Socialism, right? Well, with the third movie still in production, there is an opportunity to address the new term "Parecon" directly, so that the public knows what it really is. All that would need to be done is have one of the villains, maybe Wesley Mouch, use either the word "Parecon" and/or the term "participatory economics" in a line of dialogue, advocating it as supposedly being a good thing, and then have one of the heroes, either John Galt or Hank Rearden, argue back, pointing out that mass participation in how private companies are run just means establishing collectivized ownership over the means of production, which violates the principles of individual liberty and economic freedom. After all, if everyone is subject to the will of everyone else, then nobody has any freedom. Democracy is a sham, whether it's applied to economics or government. Freedom is the way to go.
SOURCE URL: http://amzn.to/KNf9BP
Add Comment
All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read
- 1Posted by hoghead44 10 years, 11 months agoIt is excellent to know this and I am personally glad you found this. I am not so much into Von Mises as his protégé Von Hayek. He speaks with more of a modern perspective. His expressed that if these people knew where this was all going to lead, they would not go there in the first place. Socialism lead to totalitarianism. It has no other alternative to transform into. As someone whose family left Europe to come here and having been born in Germany, I expect that Rand was even ahead of me in her prediction. I would like to comment that we are more fascist than communistic. What you see in the movie is nothing more than fascism where the business are still privately run but dictated to by a central government.| Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
