Apparently the new game is to pretend that words and concepts which have produced nothing but human misery actually mean something totally different which is bootiful and wubwy. You wouldn’t want to be against something bootiful, would oo? Oh, no!
So recently, I’ve seen “socialism” re-defined by a Loncon Worldcon panelist as “everybody who’s a panelist will share the profits equally.”
First off, that’s not what socialism means in this universe, where the sky is blue.
Second, obviously you don’t give a damn what gets shared with the volunteer staff, gofers, etc. So you’re an elitist who likes pretending that you’re all in this together, as long as you’ve got yours. It would be a lot more honest just to say you were honored to be invited, and happy to have your admission and hotel free while getting paid an appearance fee as well.
Third, I seriously doubt that there will be any Loncon profits, or that the profits would be shared by any of the vast majority of panelists who volunteer. What it means is “Loncon sweetened the deal with my agent, and with the agents of other professional guests who wanted more money, by promising profits that were very unlikely to materialize. So I’ve been taken, and I’m such a self-congratulating ditz that I haven’t even noticed.” It’s difficult to con an honest man, they say.
Then you have the redefinition of socialism as “the government has to do what everybody in society says,” as opposed to fascism, in which “the government tells everybody what to do.”
Actually, it would be “democracy” or “republicanism” when the government does the will of the people. Socialism doesn’t care what you think, any more than fascism does. The only differences are a little bit in the organization philosophy.
Finally, a person kindly explained this week, in comments about why the 1970’s version of Sesame Street is too dangerous to show kids today, that “political correctness is about not hurting the feelings of groups which have suffered prejudice in the past.”
Nooooo, “political correctness” is an old Maoist term for “adhering to the Communist Party’s party line, whatever that happens to be today,” and adopted as an apt description of the hard left’s procedures for enforcing their own party line. But thank you for playing Useful Idiot (a Stalinist term, since you have no historical perspective).
* From the 1963 Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963:
1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and
distribution of goods.
2a. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
2b. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned or controlled by the state.
3. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
So if you assume that panelists work harder and are more vital to conventions than the people who actually run the thing, or unpaid panelists, I suppose that Loncon’s supposed profit-sharing might barely count as socialism. Of course, in real life it means “the socialist politicians pretend to be paying off the socialist intelligentsia more than they actually are, while massaging their egos to make sure they don’t start thinking,” while in this case it’s actually a convention-running corporation or LLC doing the massaging instead.