I don't think you realize the full extent of many of the subjects in these readings. It is after all an impossible task to understand without a thorough education in socialism which few receive.
The term Capitalism is a biased definition of an exchange society based upon the distribution of labor. The definition was defined by Socialists, and accepting such terms is an implicit acceptance of socialism.
Socialism was and remains feared because it cannot ever fulfill the promises it makes, and the rational structural problems which were thoroughly documented in detail by Ludwig von Mises in the 50s, have been and remain ignored by the people supporting this ideology.
Those same people for the most part use every possible means to deceitfully convince and mislead others into supporting what amounts to a lie, and they do this under many conflicting names to obscure the source because the source is not credible.
For example the definition of classical liberalism is the polar opposite of what we consider liberalism and the left today. Like/similar names have been adopted and associated, such as social democracy, etc, thus corrupted and this has been happening regularly ever since the Fabian's and other branches of socialism became organized in the late 1890s.
The fundamental problems of shortage, economic calculation, distribution, and corruption all remain open intractable problems which are the same problems in any bureaucratic system. This is not a coincidence because the systems used for administering these purposes are bureaucracies and bureaucrats (at nearly every level).
Most people fail to recognize socialism, and because the problems with it are not immediately obvious they don't have the schooling to know why its terrible.
Regarding Utilitarianism, consumerism and others, you should compare what Marx and Engels consider to be the pillars of socialism with what we have today in the US, and the structures described in those ideologies. Its written in his Manifesto.
Names are not important, only the elements of the structures involved. Upon inspection, you'll find those referenced in this context all mostly share the same or similar critical elements and structures, and incidentally also have the same underlying problems discussed by Mises under forms of socialism (when taking fiat currency into account). His essays were aggregated and printed in book form under the title "Socialism" back in the 1970s.
You would be surprised, and probably a little angered if you were allowed to know and accept the truth of what socialism promotes, but its not about truth, its about the dream which never comes, and any failure is blamed on there being not enough socialism, which is completely irrational behavior, failing logic.
Mises had it right in calling the many forms of socialism we see today, destructionism, and often lamented the common abuse of the contrast principle by the people supporting it.
Socialism is very scary, especially, when youths promote it through critical theory without knowing, or business/academia promotes it through equity initiatives, or Mao struggle sessions are enforced via cancel culture. Its really not something to joke about.
The outcome of embracing irrationality is a decent into madness, and the insane eventually destroy the systems they depend on. After that, Malthus' law of Population is pretty clear about what happens at the end. Of course almost none of this type of reflection is capable when your younger (6th or 7th Grade was usually when this was required reading as a Gen Xer.
In fact boredom was heavily promoted in classes as an associated punishment, and these readings were always made to be extremely boring.
Of course Socialism is something to joke about. Every -ism (but especially Socialism) needs to be parodied at least occasionally and fortunately we have a long tradition of writers doing exactly that from Voltaire and Swift to Orwell and Huxley, as well as a host of writers who working within communist countries where their satirical writing could have carried literal death sentences. And I’d suggest parodies such as Animal Farm and books such as Master and Margarita were much more effective (and widely read) than the Austrian School at “teaching” about the dangers of communism. My only point (beyond recording some interesting highlights) was that Huxley spread his criticism wider than just socialism.
I don't think you realize the full extent of many of the subjects in these readings. It is after all an impossible task to understand without a thorough education in socialism which few receive.
The term Capitalism is a biased definition of an exchange society based upon the distribution of labor. The definition was defined by Socialists, and accepting such terms is an implicit acceptance of socialism.
Socialism was and remains feared because it cannot ever fulfill the promises it makes, and the rational structural problems which were thoroughly documented in detail by Ludwig von Mises in the 50s, have been and remain ignored by the people supporting this ideology.
Those same people for the most part use every possible means to deceitfully convince and mislead others into supporting what amounts to a lie, and they do this under many conflicting names to obscure the source because the source is not credible.
For example the definition of classical liberalism is the polar opposite of what we consider liberalism and the left today. Like/similar names have been adopted and associated, such as social democracy, etc, thus corrupted and this has been happening regularly ever since the Fabian's and other branches of socialism became organized in the late 1890s.
The fundamental problems of shortage, economic calculation, distribution, and corruption all remain open intractable problems which are the same problems in any bureaucratic system. This is not a coincidence because the systems used for administering these purposes are bureaucracies and bureaucrats (at nearly every level).
Most people fail to recognize socialism, and because the problems with it are not immediately obvious they don't have the schooling to know why its terrible.
Regarding Utilitarianism, consumerism and others, you should compare what Marx and Engels consider to be the pillars of socialism with what we have today in the US, and the structures described in those ideologies. Its written in his Manifesto.
Names are not important, only the elements of the structures involved. Upon inspection, you'll find those referenced in this context all mostly share the same or similar critical elements and structures, and incidentally also have the same underlying problems discussed by Mises under forms of socialism (when taking fiat currency into account). His essays were aggregated and printed in book form under the title "Socialism" back in the 1970s.
You would be surprised, and probably a little angered if you were allowed to know and accept the truth of what socialism promotes, but its not about truth, its about the dream which never comes, and any failure is blamed on there being not enough socialism, which is completely irrational behavior, failing logic.
Mises had it right in calling the many forms of socialism we see today, destructionism, and often lamented the common abuse of the contrast principle by the people supporting it.
Socialism is very scary, especially, when youths promote it through critical theory without knowing, or business/academia promotes it through equity initiatives, or Mao struggle sessions are enforced via cancel culture. Its really not something to joke about.
The outcome of embracing irrationality is a decent into madness, and the insane eventually destroy the systems they depend on. After that, Malthus' law of Population is pretty clear about what happens at the end. Of course almost none of this type of reflection is capable when your younger (6th or 7th Grade was usually when this was required reading as a Gen Xer.
In fact boredom was heavily promoted in classes as an associated punishment, and these readings were always made to be extremely boring.
Of course Socialism is something to joke about. Every -ism (but especially Socialism) needs to be parodied at least occasionally and fortunately we have a long tradition of writers doing exactly that from Voltaire and Swift to Orwell and Huxley, as well as a host of writers who working within communist countries where their satirical writing could have carried literal death sentences. And I’d suggest parodies such as Animal Farm and books such as Master and Margarita were much more effective (and widely read) than the Austrian School at “teaching” about the dangers of communism. My only point (beyond recording some interesting highlights) was that Huxley spread his criticism wider than just socialism.
I find there's an important distinction between a parody/sattire and a minimizing sarcastic joke ("scary").