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.

Differential equations teaches us that one can use the initial conditions of the present to extrapolate events in the near term balanced with the knowledge of the past. The interaction of technological advances and the march of history is fascinating. History can inform those willing to listen as to what will happen in the future because the laws of human natural are as immutable as the elegant equations of Newtonian physics.

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

Video: What is a Classical Liberal?

Published

on

By

A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.

In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.

OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?

Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.

The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

$.02: When is it OK to quit church?

Published

on

Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:

  • Sermon quality
  • Welcoming environment/people
  • Style of worship
  • Location

Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.

1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.

2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.

3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.

4.  It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.

5.  It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.

Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.

The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.

Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.

Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.

This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-21 ESV

The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.

Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?

There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.

That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.

That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.


This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?

Published

on

By

Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.

Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.

Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]

But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.

Dave Rubin
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.