Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Scrap socialism, Part II

Published

on

Scrap socialism Part II

In the first part of this series, we laid out the case that the limited government of a representative republic is far superior to the oppressive collectivist ideologies. Part II will dispel the ‘That wasn’t really Socialism’ mythology of the nation’s Left as one of the last ways of selling it to a new generation, and another reason the ideology should be eliminated.

Part III will briefly discuss the vast sins of socialism, etc. , with regard to the ‘Socialism hasn’t been done correctly’ Lie or some variation thereof as the final part of the case for the abolition of this modern day slavery.

‘That wasn’t really Socialism’

Most of the Conservative-Right find it absolutely baffling that anyone would support the immoral and parasitic collectivist ideologies after their centuries of failure, oppression and mass murder. The abject denial of the ideology’s dark history has to be the main reason, if not merely a lack of knowledge or the prospect of obtaining free stuff.

Much like a ‘snake-oil’ salesman of the past peddling his useless wares with new labels, collectivists try to sell their ideology under a new name after each failure. This is how there are now over 30 different synonyms for the same failed concept, that alone should inform the reader that there is something seriously wrong with it:

Behold the wonderful new idea of Communism even though it’s closely related to socialism that failed to work in New Harmony, Indiana. Hey folks, look over here at Karl Marx’s new manifesto even though Communism failed to work in the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’. And back to everything is new again with Democratic Socialism, even though it’s the same thing in an old package.

The problem for the advocates of these same ideologies is that they all have the same common elements with just the names changed to protect the guilty. The absurd contention that ‘Socialism hasn’t been tried before’ or ‘done correctly’ has been thoroughly eviscerated many times over in a number of different ways. These denials of history are primarily based on the fallacy of the ‘No True Scotsman’ variety, with retroactive alterations of the definition of the word to confidently exclude the past failures of the ideology.

During freedom week  back in July of this year The IEA’s Dr. Kristian Niemietz gave a talk on the subject on the historical record of how Leftists have lauded the beginnings of experiments in socialism and then changed to the ‘That wasn’t real Socialism’ line when they have invariably failed. These are the links to the 3 part series of the articles on those talks: Part I, Part II, Part III

In addition to this my esteemed colleague Paige Rogers thoroughly wrecked this contention with a point by point comparison of the antiquated writings of Marx and the latest incarnation of Socialism in Venezuela. These are the links to the 2 part series of the articles: Part I and Part II

Part of the problem of the Left is that they have to narrow the field of discussion to just one or two examples so as not to give up the game of trying to apply the same excuses to every instance of the failure of their ideology. For example, they will try to claim a certain national socialist worker’s party wasn’t actually a national socialist worker’s party or present-day example of absurdly claiming that a socialist regime is actually ‘capitalist’.

The Leftist-Socialist site Socialist Party of Great Britain [SPGB] has an interesting FAQ on the subject matter.

Full disclosure: It is questionable whether or not this is some sort of parody site since it has very interesting lines such as this in their FAQ:

Q: But why will people work if they don’t have to?
A: People will have to work, but it will be voluntary.

Which suspiciously sounds like the joke: As a Leftist being someone who doesn’t care what you do as long as it’s mandatory.

Never the less, they provide the following in their FAQ:

A short definition of what we understand to be socialism: “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.”

Well, if we examine the writings of one William Bradford and his history Of Plymouth plantation in his detailing of the results of the experimentation with collectivism:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For ye young-men that were most able and fit for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense.

We can see that was most assuredly sounded like “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.” Well, perhaps the excuse could be offered that Technically it wasn’t socialist because the word hadn’t been created yet. That had to wait for further experiments in collectivism in the early 1800’s with Robert Owen’s experiment in the concept at New Harmony in the American state of Indiana.

Owen set out in 1825 to establish a model of social organization, on land he had purchased in the U.S. state of Indiana. This was to be a self-sufficient, cooperative community in which property was commonly owned. New Harmony failed within a few years, taking most of Owen’s fortune with it.

The first use of the word ‘Socialism’ in the 1820’s referred to Robert Owen’s experiment and it meets the fluid criteria of the socialist in denying their past.

This was by no means the only example of early experiments in collectivism failing to work, later on, the communal colony of La Réunion was established near Dallas, Texas in 1855 and this only lasted 18 months.

It was founded by Victor Prosper Considérant, one of the leading democratic socialist figures in France and director of an international movement based on the philosophical and economic teachings of François Marie Charles Fourier. Considérant planned for the colony to be a loosely structured communal experiment administered by a system of direct democracy. The participants would share in the profits according to a formula based on the amount of capital investment and the quantity and quality of labor performed.

The Take-Away

Those were just a few examples of the early experiments in socialism, etc., that prove it’s been tried in the fluid ‘No true Scotsman’ form from the Socialist-Left. Each time, no matter the circumstances, it has failed to work. Each was “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.”

And each failed, so what is the point in repeating the experiment, time and time again? This is why this modern day slavery must be abolished from the list of viable governmental forms.

Part III will be a short overview of the Sins of Socialism and how the phrase ‘Socialism hasn’t been done correctly’ is also false because the results of collectivism are always the same, and part of the case for the ideology to be abolished.

Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: Scrap Socialism, Part II – #Logic Wins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage

Published

on

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Man fined £1,000 for outdated sense of humor

Published

on

Man fined £1000 for outdated sense of humor

Jonathon Van Maren, a contributor for LifeSiteNews, recently stumbled across an article in the UK’s Edinburgh News about a construction worker who was arrested for “pointing and laughing” at a biological male who was dressed as a female (transgender woman).

[Author’s Note: It is impolite and unkind to point and laugh at others. This article is not an endorsement of such behavior.]

As Van Maren explained, a construction worker named Graham Spiers was walking with a group of friends. The group pointed and laughed while passing a transgender individual who, suspecting that his appearance had become the subject of ridicule, telephoned the police.

Spiers was arrested five day later.

Sherriff Robert Fife scolded Mr. Spiers’s sense of humor and actions:

Transgender insanity: Police now jailing people for laughing at men in women’s clothes

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/transgender-insanity-police-now-jailing-people-for-laughing-at-men-in-womenSheriff Robert Fife also piled on, informing Spiers that, “Your offensive comments were not funny at the time and are not funny now. Your children should grow up understanding gender differences and would be ashamed at your behavior that comes from a different era has no place in today’s society.” Fife then told Spiers that in addition to the cash he had to pay to the biological man for laughing at him, he also had to pay an additional fine of another five hundred pounds.

Graham Spiers was ordered to pay a total of £1,000 for his actions “from a different era,” 500 of which was paid to the complainant.

Of the actions by police and the court in this instance, Van Maren opined:

It is disgusting enough that law enforcement would arrest and charge someone for this triviality. That alone indicates that freedom in Scotland is truly dead. But the fact that law enforcement then lectured Spiers on being a throwback from a different age (that different era being about a decade ago, for the record) and telling him his children should be ashamed of him? And that Spiers was expected to cower and listen to this tongue-lashing from his betters so he could get re-educated and realize that men could now become women and that laughing at their attempts was forbidden by law? That should absolutely repulse any liberty-loving person and terrify everyone who values freedom.

My Take

Pointing and laughing at others is unquestionably unkind. I am repulsed at the thought of such outward meanness. However, that this behavior so would be considered illegal and result in one’s arrest is punitive at best, and is undoubtedly a waste a valuable time and resources. Furthermore, the punishment in this case is brazenly excessive.

This is yet another instance of big government run amok. The Founders knew the dangers of big government. It would be prudent of us to heed the Founders’ advice, lest we find ourselves in the position of Mr. Spiers: subjugated beneath the arbitrary boot of “benevolent” governmental authority.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

Published

on

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

There’s a trend that’s been quietly, consistently rearing its ugly head against the President of the United States and his supporters since before the 2016 election. We’ve seen it among unhinged journalists, virtue-signaling celebrities, and Democratic politicians. We’ve seen it manifest in the ugliest form of hatred – the common hate-hoax – and it’s doing more to divide America than the source of the perpetrators’ anger.

They hate President Trump. They hate the people who got him elected. The hate the idea of making America great again because as much of the MAGA agenda comes to pass, they’re learning they’ve been wrong the whole time. I know first hand. I’ve been proven wrong myself.

No, I’m not a hate-hoaxer, but I’ve been against the President to varying degrees for over three years now. Before he officially won the GOP nomination in 2016, I opposed him because I felt he would do too much damage while delivering only a moderate amount of good policies. He wasn’t as bad as John Kasich or Jeb Bush, but we had Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul as better candidates. Nevertheless, he won the nomination, prompting me to spend the final leg of the 2016 election without a horse in the race. I didn’t like the idea of Trump being President, but under no circumstances did I want Hillary Clinton to be President, either.

100% crowdfunded news. Please help.

After he won, I became a cautious but hopeful watcher. While we worked on alternatives to bring limited-government federalism to the forefront of local, state, and national politics, I took a case-by-case stance on the President himself. When he did well, I praised him. When he did poorly, I criticized him. This stance has remained until this day, though there have been times when I was more supportive or more critical, depending on the policy discussion of the day. Tax and bureaucratic cuts – good. Tariffs and bump stock bans – bad. The recent cave on the border omnibus – very bad. Most foreign policy moves (leaving Iran deal, leaving Paris accords, moving embassy to Jerusalem) – very good.

Unfortunately, it seems many on the left have been unwilling to recognize even the remotest possibility anything the President is doing is good. What’s worse is that some have been so aggressive in their desire to prove their point that they’ve pretended to be victims for the sake of getting their “victims’ perks” of love and affection from their peers while painting anyone wearing a MAGA hat as bigoted and hateful.

Thus, the anti-MAGA hate hoax was born and it’s been so prominent over the last two-and-a-half years, one must wonder how mainstream media and Democrats became so gullible that they fall for it every single time.

Andy Ngo at Quillette put together a comprehensive list of hate hoaxes that leftists have perpetrated to paint the President and his supporters as racists. It’s absolutely stunning when you see the magnitude of the hatred – THEIR hatred – that makes them willing to tell bald-faced lies just to prove the movement they oppose is as bad as they think it is.

I’ve had ideological disagreements with nearly every presidential candidate (let alone every President) since I became an adult. There’s nothing wrong with disagreement as long as one is willing to not be blinded in one direction or the other. There are plenty who blindly follow President Trump to approximately the same degree that supporters blindly followed President Obama. The herd mentality seems to have become the way of the political world in America for our last two presidents. But that blind devotion is simply an annoyance. The blind hatred that drives people to commit these hoaxes is far more dangerous.

It’s likely when the details are fully revealed regarding Jussie Smollett’s hate-hoax, it was driven more by a narcissistic desire to advance his career rather than pure hatred for the MAGA crowd or the President, but obviously the latter hatred played a role in his decision-making process. This type of action is never acceptable. We have enough outrage in America. There’s no need to manufacture even more for false reasons.

It’s time for the unhinged left to stop assuming every MAGA supporter is racist and start asking how the actions of those on their side of the political aisle drove massive amounts of people to support President Trump. Perhaps then, they’ll realize the hatred is coming mostly from them.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report