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.

Continue Reading
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

Top 5 ‘Bottomless Pinocchios’ of the national socialist left

Published

on

By

Top 5 Bottomless Pinocchios of the national socialist left

That perfect paragon of journalistic ‘objectivity’, the Washington Post, introduced a new rating for lies. We applied them to the left.

The Washington Post has developed a new rating system – the ‘Bottomless Pinocchio’ – for a false claim repeated over and over. This is somewhat ironic since the leftist media excels in the practice. While we will try to keep this to the more egregious and discrete lies of the left, a few notes on their other types of lies are in order.

The labeling and language lies of the left

Even the labels they apply to themselves aside from being socialist are falsehoods. These are people who work against the cause of liberty on a daily basis while pretending to be liberal. It’s a post-modernism community that has the false front of being ‘progressive’, that would prefer to use the judiciary to impose their socialist national agenda rather than democratic means.

Then there is the game of lying by language the left plays to excess. Time was, global cooling was the existential threat to woman and mankind, until it stopped getting cooler. Then global warming became the existential threat until it stopped getting warmer. Accordingly, they hit on the deception of working against it doing either, so no matter what happens, they can claim they are right because the climate has always changed. This also gave them a nice bonus in tarring any who opposes their control agenda as being a ‘climate change denier’ – even though no one actually denies the climate changes. Better yet, they have been able to shorten it up to the ultimate insult of labeling their opposition as ‘climate deniers’ as if people would actually deny reality itself.

These will be the top 5 ‘Bottomless Pinocchios’ of the left. These are lies that are recycled repeatedly by the left in their effort at distorting reality to the point where gun free zones actually keep people safe, no one is starting a conversation about gun confiscation and societal slavery can really work.

 Bottomless Pinocchio 5: People have a ‘right’ to health care

This is one of the left’s favourites in trying to reshape (or ‘reform’) reality. Like many other variations of the ‘people have a right to’ line, this stems from the concept of Coercive or Collective Rights, whereby people have the ‘right’ to force others to provide them with the vestiges of this ‘right’. These are contrasted with Natural Rights possessed by everyone, the right to self-preservation, the right to property, the right of freedom of expression.

Having a ‘right’ to health care, or ‘right’ to feel safe, or a ‘right’ to not be offended, generally entails that someone else has to provide for this ‘right’. In the case of healthcare, providing this ‘right’ would mean that medical professionals would be required to sacrifice their time and labour in this effort. Citizens would also be forced to contribute their property. There is a word for when people are forced to provide their time and effort to others. It’s called slavery.

In point of fact the phrase should really be people have a ‘right’ to enslave others. But the folks who pretend to support liberty can’t say that directly, hence they use the ‘right to’ lie.

Bottomless Pinocchio 4: Gun free zones work as advertised

This one is slightly different from the others in that even leftists know they will be laughed off the public stage if they said this out loud. Rather, they imply the idea with their policy agenda of incessantly working towards gun confiscation, supposedly rendering the entire world a global ‘gun-free’ zone such as the latest example in France.

Expanding what doesn’t work always seems to be a hallmark of the left. Never mind that something doesn’t function in one area, extend it elsewhere so it’ll work… somehow.

Anyone familiar with logic can easily see why these don’t work, since those bent on evil will tend to go where they will have little opposition. Unfortunately, as with the fact that there are only two genders, leftists don’t seem to be able to comprehend that which is bloody obvious. They seem to have the misguided idea that a rule or a sign will stop a mass murderer.

The facts bear this out given that most mass shootings take place in ‘gun-free’ zones. This has been the situation for almost 30 years.

The problem for the left is that they can’t actually admit to their absolute failure in this area. Were they to do this, it would mean an end to their whole gun confiscation agenda. Thus they perpetuate that it’s a myth that defensive gun uses exist or that a ‘good guy (or gal) with a gun’ will deter these tragedies. It means that they continue to put people at risk for the sake of their disarmament agenda, without the hint of guilt on their part.

Bottomless Pinocchio 3 : No one is talking about gun confiscation

Finding cases where leftists have demanded gun confiscation has become as easy as shooting fish in a barrel (pardon the pun Peta). The past few years have seen an increase in these demands from the left to the point that it’s occurred more than 70 times not counting excerpts, syndication and reprints. Repeating this lie enables leftists to keep the discussion to the next incremental step instead of their final solution to the liberty problem.

Still, the liberty grabber left persists in propagating this enormous lie. It does several things for them. It short circuits the negative effects of gun confiscation such as leaving the innocent defenseless against criminals and the government. It lulls some into a false sense of security as to the left’s long term goal for the cause of liberty.

This perennial lie is also necessary to get some to accept governmental overreach in controlling their personal property. They have used this same technique in getting people to register their guns accompanied by the solemn promise that they won’t use it to confiscate guns, after which their guns are confiscated.

Bottomless Pinocchio 2: Failed socialist experiments weren’t really socialist

It would seem this little ditty began when the socialist-left started trying to claim that a certain National Socialist German Workers’ Party wasn’t actually a National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The Left actually tried to reverse reality, making a party with a collectivist ideology of the left to one of an individualist ideology of the right. The problem for them is that those on the pro-liberty, conservative right, by definition favour lower taxes and limited government. Hardly something the Nazis were known for.

Leftists will often times try to deflect the facts of the matter given the very name of the party: ‘Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei’. But consider the words of the translator of Mein Kampf:

Finally, I would point out that the term Social Democracy may be misleading in English, as it has not a democratic connotation in our sense. It was the name given to the Socialist Party in Germany. And that Party was purely Marxist; but it adopted the name Social Democrat in order to appeal to the democratic sections of the German people.
James Murphy. Abbots Langley, February, 1939

Later on, they played this little game with virtually every other socialist regime. Miraculously enough, before these socialist regimes ran out of other people’s money the left labelled them as one of their own. Then in the blink of an eye, they would ping-pong from left to right almost overnight when they inevitably failed.

The problem for the left is that they have nothing on George Orwell. We’re supposed to simply ignore basic facts from history, beginning with the very words that socialists have used to describe themselves. These socialist regimes also followed collectivist precepts. But in an instant these facts are swept away, in favour of a new reality where Red is Blue and Blue is Red.

Bottomless Pinocchio 1: Socialism can actually work

This is a basic survival lie of the left. They cannot accede to the fact of 400 years of the failure of the ideas of their base ideology, so they must pretend it can work… somehow. Just as they can pretend to be liberal while working to tear down liberty, but that’s another subject.

Since their agenda of societal slavery has never worked, they have to deflect the argument with the aforementioned ‘socialism has never been tried before’ and ‘failed socialist experiments weren’t really socialist’ lies. Or pretending that non-socialist nations are really socialist.

The bottom line is that socialism can never work because it runs counter to basic human physiology. One will always see less of a behaviour that is negatively reinforced, while more will be seen with behaviour that is positively reinforced. The fundamental results of reward and punishment cannot be ignored, and yet this is what socialists have as the basis of their ideology.

Consider that the experiment of socialism has been conducted in situations around the world for over 400 years with the same result: failure. It should be obvious by now to most intelligent people that it cannot work, and yet the national socialist-left still persists in trying to turn that which is impossible into something that is possible, no matter who has to suffer and die.

The takeaway

In many ways the left should stay away from pronouncing judgement on falsehoods when they are so rife with them. Leftist lies keep them afloat in the sea of politics. We have shown that not only are they false, but they must be retold in order for the left to survive.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Dr Paul Lim tells how he went from atheist to Christian… at Yale

Published

on

Dr Paul Lim tells how he went from atheist to Christian at Yale

Universities aren’t usually considered likely venues for people to turn to the Christian faith. Ivy League universities rife with atheist professors are even less likely than most to yield a conversions to the faith. If anything, they’re efforts are often directly focused on converting Christians into abandoning their faith.

Dr Paul Lim tells a different tail. His personal journey from South Korea to California, then Pennsylvania on to Yale, is an exception to the rule. His journey is not common, but then again who’s to say what sort of journey to embracing Jesus Christ can be considered common?

It’s not too long, clocking in at just over 48 minutes, and much better than your average network television hour. If you already believe, it may help you open the eyes of others. If you don’t believe, your eyes may be opened.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance?

Published

on

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance

To really answers the question of whether life was created or came about by random chance, we need to take a mathematical look at things. It may be easier to form our opinions based on something we read in a junior high science book, but there really is more to it than the surface questions asked and answered by scientists and theologians alike.

For the faithful, it comes down to faith. For the scientific, it also comes down to faith. Whose faith is more likely to be correct?

Part of the answer can be found in this short video. Those who think there’s no faith associated with scientific theories clearly don’t understand the mathematics behind the science they claim to hold dear.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report