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.
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.
PragerU: As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer
The rich are getting richer, and the poor are… also getting richer. What’s driving this wealth creation process? In this video, Daniel Hannan explains why it is capitalism — and capitalism alone — that has led to the unprecedented enrichment that is the central fact of Western life.
Published: Apr 9, 2018
Remember what’s important in life
We all deserve forgiveness, the benefit of the doubt, and need to be reminded of what really matters from time to time. When you encounter someone who does something rude or mean or bad, avoid labeling them as a rude or bad person. Instead, give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just having a bad day/week/year and they are in a place where they have forgotten about what really matters in this life.
That it’s not about wealth and acquiring stuff. It’s about relationships and how we spend our time together. It’s about lifting each other up.
Have you ever gotten into that rut, where you have been hyper-focused on your job, or your hobby, or self-improvement? You were doing really well! You’ve gotten ahead, acquired a lot of great, new things; you make more money now, and you’ve gotten really good at whatever it is you were working on.
But then… You watch a show, a movie, maybe hear a song or a sermon, or read a story about humanity and how short this life is; About how we treat each other when we are trying to acquire too much… and it’s never enough; it’s never big enough; it never satisfies us.
But when you get that message again from that show… You recognize it, and you wake up. You stand up in the room, and you look around, and you see that all over the room everyone else still has their heads down. And very few are standing with you. But you see it now, and you say to yourself, “Why was I so focused on that? That doesn’t matter! My kids are growing up! My parents are aging, my grandparents dying. And I’ve been missing all of it… For what? For a house that’s 1000 sq. feet bigger? For a car that can drive a little faster?”
We all get sidetracked and stuck on this misleading path. That’s why we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt. Try not to label people as “bad guy” just because they did something once or twice, and recognize that people deserve forgiveness, and just need to be woken up again.
Remind them. Remind me when I forget. Please. It’s about Love. Family. Friends. Relationships.
Sell everything you own if it’s blinding you. Buy experiences instead- Experiences that you can share with one another. Hug. Laugh. Cry. Touch. Share. And remember. Remember what it’s all about.
A Memo to the Liberty Grabbers of the Left from the Pro-Liberty Right.
Hat Tip: Nazis Are Socialists (Meso)
A dose of reality for you Leftists opposing freedom on behalf of the gun owners of America.
Seeing that we gun owners been your rhetorical punching bag for several weeks, there are a few things we would like to point out to you folks opposed to the most essential of Liberties. You’ve spent all manner of airtime talking down to us, dictating what we ‘need’ with regard to our basic human rights. So now it is time for you to listen to a couple of brutal truths in the matter. These aren’t going to be ‘politically correct’, by any means, but such is usually not the case with cold hard reality.
From your ever so self laudatory language, you Liberty grabbers on the Left like to think of yourselves as noble warriors, out there ‘changing the world’ for the ‘Common good’ [Gemeinnutz in the German vernacular]. Fighting for Socialist… er. Social ‘Justice’ and all manner of flowery folderol [Cue mournful violin music]. Yes, you think of yourselves as ‘sacrificing’ for the ‘the children*’ no matter what that entails. Whether it’s all manner of fame on Youtube or Facebook, to endless praise from your echo chamber, there are no limits as to your willingness to signal your virtue to everyone.
*Unborn children excluded
Well, sorry to break it to you, but in the words of the Marchers: “We call BS!”
The fact is there is nothing more selfish than demanding that others be deprived of their ‘essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety’ for yourselves. You want others to sacrifice their freedom for some mythical gains in your perceived security. It would be one thing for you to give up your Liberty, but that isn’t the case is it? You are marching to demand that the basic human rights of others be stripped from them, that is self-centred in the extreme.
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves” ― Abraham Lincoln
Empathy is a very important human quality, so perhaps you should consider giving up some of your essential liberties to understand what is at stake for those of us on the Pro-Liberty side of the aisle. Maybe you should demand that you be stripped of your First amendment rights? Or perhaps Liberty Grabbers groups should be licensed before they can demand that others be deprived of their rights?
Oh, what’s that you say? You have a Constitutional right to free-speech or freedom of the press? That those rights ‘Shall not be infringed’? [to coin a phrase] Or that the slightest amount will lead to a slippery slope towards the loss of them all. Welcome to our world, where every time a Leftist lunatic decides to go on a mass murder spree, our Constitutional rights are suddenly on the chopping block. With it just being a question of how much of those rights we’re going to lose – if not everything.
Can we dictate what you ‘need’ in exercising your Rights?
Can we demand that you justify the keeping of your liberties? Can we arbitrarily decree that certain modes of speech are ‘Militaristic’ in style? Do you really ‘need’ to appear on the Tele 30 times a day? Do you really need a ‘high capacity’ smart phone? Do you really need to fire off 5 tweets in a minute just to kill off a basic human right?
Hypocrisy on parade: Liberty Grabbers have guns to protect themselves while denying that right to others.
Please note that the people in the Liberty Grabber movement you idolize are also complete hypocrites in that while they work tirelessly to take away our property and our Liberty, they are safe and secure surrounded by ARMED security. Yes, think about it, the people who rail against guns have no problem being protected by them. Were they to be true to their words, they would disarm their security details. If Citibank and Bank of America didn’t care to be hypocrites they would dismiss their armed security and announce it to the world. Oh, they have to deal with threats? So do the rest of us – and yet they want to make everyone else vulnerable to those threats while they stay safe and secure.
Here’s a hard dose of reality for you: We gun owners protect everyone, even you Liberty Grabbers.
The truth is that while you uselessly virtue signal your inestimable magnanimity, it is those of us on the Pro-liberty side who work to keep you people safe. This may come as a shock, but if you live in one of the states or localities that value Liberty, you are around concealed weapons every time you go out in public. Yes, you might find this to be too scary to think about, but every day you are protected by the deterrence effect of ordinary folks just like you [aside from their cherishing freedom that is] carrying around *Gasp* Firearms hidden from view.
Consequently, you don’t know who might be carrying a gun…. and neither do the criminals. Thus the value of an armed citizenry. They don’t know who may have the means to defend themselves, so they don’t know who to victimize, therefore everyone is protected.
The exception being The “Gun-Free” zone, that vestige of the Utopian fantasy world of the Left. Most mass shootings take place where the innocent are denied their basic human Liberty of self-defence. So what does that mean for you Leftists of the so-called “Party of Science”? It means that your absurd idea that a sign will stop a mass murder results in dead children. That is what you want everywhere, how does that even reach the threshold of rationality?
If you aren’t going to thank us for keeping you safe, could you at least leave us alone?
So why is all of this important? Because the people you have demonisd for weeks are the ones keeping you safe. Those you label as terrorist, splattered in blood are the people providing for your security. How is that for irony?
- We’re the ones who take the time endure the draconian hurdles put in the way of our basic human rights.
- We’re the ones who take the time to select the proper firearm and holster to carry concealed out in public.
- We’re the ones who practice with our weapons in case an emergency arises.
- We’re the ones who carry a cellphone and extra magazines for that potential emergency.
- And We’re the ones who will most likely have to deal myriad legal problem and legal fees for merely protecting ourselves, our families and even you people should it be necessary.
Now, we don’t expect you people to grateful for this protection you are afforded. Goodness knows you wouldn’t lower yourself to talk to those of us on the Pro-liberty side. But could you at least acknowledge the effort and perhaps stop obsessing over taking away our Liberty that keeps you safe?