The title of the article reads, "The revolution sounds like a nice idea."
Germany is an interesting country. That could sound bland or ironic, but Germany is an interesting country, and the more I learn about it, the more intriguing it becomes. In the 20th century, for example, Germany has shown breathtaking dynamism (1890-1914), at other times a horrendous cruelty (1933-1945), and always renewing itself, so that it has another go at life's challenges. Germany provides an almost exaggerated example of humanity's struggles with good and evil.
Anyone interested in revolution needs to study German history. Depending on how you define "revolution," Germany has had several of them, just in the 20th century. The term "revolution" recalls pitched battles in the street, a swapping of governments, from Left to Right, then back to the Left again. In practice, revolution concerns a society revolving, sometimes 360 degrees, back to where it started.
German history and revolution also involves a study of the term "socialism" in depth because, in Germany, two revolutions claimed allegiance to socialism. The Nazi Party called its political philosophy "National Socialism," East Germany called its philosophy "Soviet Socialism," two dictatorships with presumably opposite intentions, but the same repression of freedom and civil rights.
So I did the sensible thing and looked up socialism on-line. The Wikipedia article defines it as a "left-wing economic philosophy characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership." By those terms, both the Soviets and the Nazis practiced socialism, no question.
The Nazis described their socialistic practice as "Gleichschaltung," from the two German words "gleich," meaning "the same," and "Schaltung," meaning "control-panel." All of the functions of the society plugged into the same control-panel. The Soviets described their socialism as "Lenkungswirtschaft," from two words "lenken," to steer, and "Wirtschaft,," meaning a steered economy--steered from the top--so more or less the same definition.
Inevitably, I suppose, socialism has acquired a bête noire status, as a politically-incorrect term, especially for leftists. They hate for Republicans to tar their policies as "socialist," even if they are, by the definition of socialism. Republicans, on the other hand, seldom have to deal with this stigma.
Democrats, leftists, and other American citizens must realize that socialism has definition, based on web-sites like Wikipedia, whose article on this subject runs fifteen pages. Wikipedia makes sure that readers will not confuse a herring for a race-horse, or an ant-eater for a lion. All they have to do is check off the points of contention against the known definition. The Nazis and Soviets did not bother to pass off their philosophies as herrings and ant-eaters, and neither should we! Both regimes mutated pretty easily into dictatorships. Practically speaking, they let their administrations run everything, as the means to keep tabs on everyone.
For Republicans, conferring that level of influence and control to the government presents many risks to a freedom-loving society. It is the reason Republicans loathe socialism. They also believe that a society that allows freedom for associations, freedom in the marketplace, and the wealth to innovate will yield better results than a single, uniform action emanating from government officials at the top. It is as simple as that.
