Socialists Against Socialism

The national Socialist Left’s ongoing efforts to absolve themselves of their parasitic ideology’s past crimes against humanities has created many a contradiction to the point that they should seemingly be against their own agenda.

It would seem like we dreadfully misjudged the socialists over the many centuries they’ve been around. According to at least some socialist factions, they are against big government socialism.

Now, perhaps this is just another way of claiming failed socialist regimes of the past weren’t actually socialist, but that denial of reality places them in quite the quandary. For if they truly are against past government control of the economy, then it would stand to reason that they should be against the same in the future.

In other words, they can either be against big government or be absolved of socialism crimes against humanity….. BUT NOT BOTH. Consider this graphic from our comrades of the Official Socialist Party of Great Britain [SPGB]:

Instead of a group of government people owning and controlling the means of production, they want a group of people owning and controlling the means of production… or something.

Or Consider this video: Socialism in 5 Minutes

From Socialism Explained

Partial transcript:

“So what is socialism if we’re doing like the dictionary definition its defined as a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production distribution is exchanged be able to regulate it by the community as a whole”
[..]
But wait you may think doesn’t that mean Big Brother government comes in well short answer NO, long answer NO
[..]
Bonus round here’s what socialism is not libraries, public health care free tuition these are not socialism

Luminaries of the Left such as R.D. Wolf have made it abundantly clear that true socialism can only be when the people own and control the means of production, but not when those people are a government..

If you are a true masochist, there is this video: Socialism For Dummies.

Contrast these obfuscations with the partial Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the term Socialism:

a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Therefore, in trying to deny their blood-soaked past, socialists are advocating the exact opposite of what they profess. Hence the slogan: Socialists against Socialism.

It should also follow that said Socialists should be against the government take-over with National Socialized Healthcare.

So, this places the nation’s socialist in a severe dilemma – oppose the nationalization of ‘the means of production’, which would include Obamacare and single payer.

Or, be permanently affixed to the mass murderer and oppression of their collectivist brethren.

Either they use this ruse and work against national Socialized Healthcare and other socialist schemes….

…Or they have to admit that socialist regimes of the past were actually Socialist.
P.S. I must add the proviso that the websites of the Official Socialist Party of Great Britain [SPGB] could merely be a parody site with some of the items they’ve posted.

Video: Make Mine Freedom (1948) – A warning of the economic slavery of the ‘Isms’

The first of the 4 Stages of Socialist* Failure is of course promises of freebies to be taken from others. This video from 1948 points that out, and that one must give up their freedom to get ‘other people’s money’.
It also uses the term ‘Ism’ to describe these ideologies, so one could surmise that back after the second world war, they didn’t bother to try and separate the various collectivist ‘miracle cures’.

H/T AnimationStation.

The 4 Stages of Socialist* Failure
1. Socialists* promise free stuff.
2. Socialists* gain control based on these promises.
3. Socialists* use force and falsehoods when these promises cannot be fulfilled.
4. When it inevitably fails, Socialists* parrot the ‘it wasn’t really Socialism** lie’ and start over with promises for free stuff with a new name.

*[or a synonym of thereof] Bolshevists, Castroists, Chavistas, Communists, Collectivists, Democratic Socialists, Fabianists, Fascists, Leftists, Leninists, Maoists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, National Socialists, Progressives, Project X advocates, Rule of the proletariat advocates, Social justice warriors, Stalinists, Statists, State ownership advocates, Totalitarianists, Trotskyists, Utopian Socialists, etc. etc.

** Or one of the multitude of synonyms for essentially the same concept.

Why The National Socialist Left Is Losing

We are witnessing in the machinations of CNN the self-immolation of the nation’s Left. Were it not for it’s domination of media, culture and indoctrination establishments, the national Socialist Left would be a minor third party of no importance to the political scene.

Cultural Marxists have tried to dictate that certain word parings are verboten. This is because they evoke certain historic facts they would like everyone to forget. As is their usual projective modus operandi the Left tries to cast their tactics on it’s opposition with accusations of historical revision.
The fact is the Oxford English dictionary defines the term national:

Relating to or characteristic of a nation; common to a whole nation

Presumably this is acceptable when referring to a national sports franchise, but not a national political movement of the Socialist-Left.

Although it is supremely ironic that those that denounce certain word parings culturally speaking, those who would fall under the rubric of the term NAZI as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary:

“one who is likened to a German Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person”

Alas, our evisceration of their ongoing attempts history revision will have to wait for another day.

Recent events have brought forth some thoughts with regard to the age-old issue of ‘media bias’.  Does anyone even remember that quaint old term back from the days of yore when the Socialist Media, at least tried to hide their party preferences? There was a reason people used to refer to CNN as the ‘Communist News Network’, given their current ideological preferences it’s no wonder they don’t decorate their sets in a Red hammer & sickle motif, complete with a copy of Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia”.

Does the National Socialist Media even try to pull off that deception any more? Or it is a case where it’s so blatantly biased toward the Left (if not the far Left) that anyone attempting to foist that lie in the public sphere is laughed off the stage?

Bill whittle had some fascinating points on this issue in his latest video on a recurring point – that Media bias accounts for approximately 10 – 15 polling percentages:

THE TRUTH vs CNN

Were the national socialist left to be lacking in their domination of the media, culture and the government indoctrination system they would be nothing but an also ran party with little significance. A shrunken vestige of a former national party that now only has ageing hippies at the helm that merely regurgitate 500-year-old ideas.

In many ways the self-immolation of the national Socialist Left is quite amusing and it brings hope that the vile ideology of socialism is seeing it’s last days as a viable political system. Much like a black hole collapsing in on itself, the machinations of the national Socialist Left will only serve to hasten it’s demise. For it will only panic further when it realizes that it’s old tactics no longer function.

Hopefully speaking, the outcome of all these trials and tribulations will see the emergence of 3 main ‘wings’ of the political spectrum. Most of which will consist of the Right, Liberal and finally the far..far.. left. The first two will compete in the arena of the role of limited governance as it should be, with respectful contentions over the important issues instead of the nonsensical cultural Marxism agenda.

The Conservative-Right will be where it’s always been, while the Liberal wing will be borne of the ashes of today’s national socialist left

Parenthetically speaking, there will always be a role for an insignificant national far left – socialist party merely as a public reminder of the danger of the collectivist mindset. Consequently, whenever someone new begins making promises for vote-buying handouts we can all point the originators of the scheme and quickly dismiss such outdated ideas from long ago. They can also serve as a reminder that while it’s self-identification has changed many times over the centuries, it’s basic notions have remained the same: Promise freebies looted from others, seize control and use terror (revolutionary and otherwise) to maintain control over the people.

 

The 4 Stages of Socialist* Failure

1. Socialists* promise free stuff.
2. Socialists* gain control based on these promises.
3. Socialists* use force and falsehoods when these promises cannot be fulfilled.
4. When it inevitably fails, Socialists* parrot the ‘it wasn’t really Socialism** lie’ and start over with promises for free stuff with a new name.

*[or a synonym of thereof] Bolshevists, Castroists, Chavistas, Communists, Collectivists, Democratic Socialists, Fabianists, Fascists, Leftists, Leninists, Maoists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, National Socialists, Progressives, Project X advocates, Rule of the proletariat advocates, Social justice warriors, Stalinists, Statists, State ownership advocates, Totalitarianists, Trotskyists, Utopian Socialists, etc. etc.

** Or one of the multitude of synonyms for essentially the same concept.

1. Socialists* promise free stuff

Socialists* have no qualms about promising other people’s money and property in order to buy votes and loyalty. In their quest to attain power over the people they will reverse reality, such that it is ‘greedy’ to keep one’s hard earned money but ‘liberal’ to steal it from someone else.

They will couch these promises in flowery terms of income equality or ‘Social Justice’ to provide a thin veneer of morality to outright theft at the point of a gun. Oftentimes these assurances will have the underlying implications of free stuff, but worded so that it is a somehow a noble gesture to receive stolen goods.

These assurances of wealth transfers to those who support the Socialists* can be in general form or specific goodies to be handed out – but only when couched in altruistic terminology. This is so the potential recipients of such largess can still think of themselves as merely contributing to the common good while getting freebies, free healthcare or free higher education are prime examples.

Those in favour of such theft through the proxy of a big and wonderful socialist government would like to think of themselves righting past wrongs most have never experienced. Far better that a small business owner has her property stolen and fund their 6 year degree in cis-transgender studies than said owner expand her business and create more jobs. Somehow their theft is all for the ‘greater good’ of everyone else because they get to decide that it’s more important to have such experts than employment for the people.

2. Socialists* gain control based on these promises.

This is either done through evolutionary means, the incremental take-over of government by socialists* who quite often deny they are Socialists*. This is the “One man [or woman], One Vote, ONCE process. Whereby the Socialists* promise loot in exchange for loyalty and votes, attain power and never yield it until their system fails yet again. While advertised as ‘democratic’ it exhibits the worst aspects of this concept of the majority victimizing the minority. For there will always be many those of a lower station will to roll the dice on Socialism** than those unwilling to have their wealth ‘redistributed’. In essence, this is a formalized Mob rule with the ballot box and elections replacing the torch and the pitchfork.

Then there are the revolutionary means by which a small but armed minority seizes power and promptly disarms the populace so the reverse doesn’t take place. Soon after, all will be good in a “Worker’s Paradise with only minor necessity of the oppression of the populace and a few million die by firing squad or forced starvation.

This stage will also see the beginnings of the socialist* putting in place the means by which they will keep a tight grip on power to the exclusion of democracy.

There will be various types of ‘social’ programs that will ostensibly help the poor, but only set them on a path of permanent dependency. One only has to examine the results of their “Great Society” to see how much the Socialists* care about holding onto power than caring about people.

In many cases, they will also set up government bureaucracies meant to oppress any opposition to the socialist national agenda. This ranges from secret police agencies in the use of existing services such as the IRS to tamp down those the opposition.

The Socialists* will also continually press for the registration and confiscation of the people’s means of Self-Defense to the point of obsession. For it is well nigh impossible to forcibly take from some according to their ability when people can resist said force.

3. Socialists* resort to lies and force when these promises cannot be fulfilled.

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Karl Marx

The blunt fact is that the basic precepts of Socialism** are contrary to the psychological principle of Operant Conditioning:

“Behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e. strengthened); behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out-or be extinguished (i.e. weakened).”

Thus when people are punished for being productive [From each according to their abilities] and rewarded for sloth [To each according to their abilities] the system breaks down. When the hard earned money of the productive is stolen from them, it discourages productive behaviour. Conversely, when the unproductive receive unearned monetary rewards they are encouraged to continue this behaviour.

We are told by the Socialists* to ignore this basic psychological concept with various convenient rationalizations. The problem for them is the fact that this principle had shown it’s practical effects over centuries of evidence. Of course, this isn’t the first reality defying progress prognostication, and it won’t be the last, and it doesn’t matter how many times such falsehoods are repeated.

If people are punished for working they will work less, if people are rewarded for indolence they will be indolent. This took place with the experimentation with socialism in the first permanent settlements in the Americas centuries ago and it’s taking place in Socialist* nations at present.

Thus various forms of force have to be utilized by the socialists* to keep them in power. These range from the use of ‘revolutionary terror’ or ‘Red Terror’ to suppress dissent. To Leftists in the states losing their ever loving minds over the people having the temerity to vote them out of their birthright to power.

4. When it inevitably fails, Socialists* parrot the ‘it wasn’t really Socialism** lie’ and start over with promises for free stuff with a new name.

It is inevitable that over time a Socialist* system will break down and fail despite the repression unleashed on the people and a high body count. In many regimes with totalitarian tendencies, the situation will become so dire that the people will rise up and remove the Socialists* from power. In others the Socialists* will be voted out of office.

Of course, were the Socialists* truly concerned about the fate of their subjects, they would examine where they went wrong and try something different. They could reject their base ideology and turn to something that works, but there are some so imbued with attaining power this way they have no other ideology.

Since they cannot abandon their centuries old ideology, they have to recast it as something else with a new label. Such explains the plethora of labels for essentially the same concept. With socialism** a known failure, they just called it communism,* when that failed to work as advertised, they called it Democratic socialism** over and over again.

The dilemma for the Socialists* then becomes one of explaining away the centuries of repeated failure of their base ideology. To which they utilized the basic expedient of lying about why it failed.

These range from the “no true Scotsman’s” fallacy of claiming that socialist* systems of the past weren’t actually socialist or claiming that those past failures fell under another convenient rubric.

The use of the dictionary oxymoron “State Capitalism” is one of their favourites. With that little ditty they can cast their socialist* brethren as something else, with the implication that it is the opposite of what they are. They can use that little turn of phrase to advocate socialism as the practical alternative to ‘capitalism’.

At some point the people have to wake up to this repeated deception and recognize the lies being told to them, hence the purpose of this dissertation. It’s main purpose is to identify the Socialist* scam by it’s characteristics instead of the labels used by it’s purveyors. People should question the basic premise of Socialism and why is has failed time and time again over the centuries. They should question why the left keeps on calling by different names and why they cannot be honest about those repeated failures, not to mention it’s blood soaked history of oppression and mass murder. They should question why the left cannot answer the question socialism** being imposed at the point of a gun.

There is an old saying that “if something is too good to be true, it probably isn’t.” Such is the case with Socialism or it’s many synonyms.

#Socialists Against Big Government Part III

In the first two parts of this series of essays we eviscerated the leftist fallacy that a collective [Group] of people somehow isn’t a government when they decree it to be so. It was also pointed out it that it would be impossible to implement their socialist national agenda without the intervention of a governmental body and that these rarely if ever dissipate themselves.
Part III will take the leftists at their word [A dubious proposition to be sure] and explore its policy implications in the left’s socialist national agenda.

As we determined in part I, the futile attempt by the nation’s socialist left to deceive and absolve themselves of the blood soaked history of their base ideology can be easily eviscerated with a logical analysis of the phraseology they utilised in this endeavour.

To reprise the point: ‘The people collectively’ in the phrase ‘The people collectively and directly own the means of production’. Equates to a ‘group of people’ as in the definition of ‘government’.
Thus, the logical “progression”: The people collectively = Group of people = Government.

Therefore, the equivalent phrase is ‘The [Government] directly own(s) the means of production’, so once again socialism has been proven to be socialism despite the protestations of the nation’s Left.

Part II Demonstrated that this ideological deception is also an impossibility within the confines of the Left’s socialist national agenda.

But let us take them at their word and examine what they should be advocating to further demolish this ideological deception of theirs. Moreover, this won’t even touch on the point that there have been socialist societies that fall within the realm the left’s definitional deceptions that have also failed.

Logically extending this to the left’s national agenda, examine the words of the ‘FAQ’ of the Socialist Party of Great Britain(SPGB), part of the World Socialist Movement (WSM):

Isn’t socialism what they had in Russia, or in China or Cuba, or in Sweden?
No. Socialism, as understood by the World Socialist Movement, was never established in any country. 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.

If there are wages and salaries, it is not socialism.
State ownership is not socialism.
Social programs are not socialism.
Socialism means democracy at all levels of society, including the workplace.
Socialism means a wageless, moneyless society.
Socialism means voluntary labour.
Socialism means free access to the goods produced by society.

With this understanding of socialism, the Socialist Party of Great Britain noted in its journal, the Socialist Standard (August 1918, page 87), that the supposedly “Marxist” Russian Revolution of November 1917 was not socialist.

[Our emphasis on the item about Social programs are not socialism.]

This is straight from the source as it were. We should note the proviso that this could very well be some sort of parody site given it’s contradictions, but these policy positions have also been reflected in other sources.

As previously discussed, this alleged disconnection to the current set of socialists can only exist within a thin veneer of credibility. The mere examination of their words exposes that they are merely talking about government owning or regulating the means of production.

Nevertheless, were one to take them at their word they should be against any form of nationalization of any industry or system. Since they supposedly do not want the government to own the means of production. In particular, they should be against national socialized medicine in the form of Obamacare and single payer. Theoretically, they should be against confiscatory taxation since this administered and expended by government (However, this is contradicted by their redistribute the wealth mantra).

The current set of socialists has no admonitions in this regard. Thus this whole edifice of ideological deception comes crashing down. For the nation’s socialist left cannot advocate the nationalization of industry in the present tense without showing that this is exactly what their ideological brethren of the past has done.

They have a choice in the matter. They can either dispense with the fiction that socialists of the past weren’t socialists. Or dispense with most, if not all of their policy agenda.

Our guess is that they will do neither and still issue their ideological lies while contradicting them at every turn with what they continue to advocate.

 

 

 

Senator Mike Lee: Why not give people a choice and let the superior economic concepts win the day?

Senator Mike Lee penned a superb editorial on the proposed BCRA. And it has one of the best ideas yet on the bureaucratic monstrosity known as Obamacare: Give people a choice in the matter. With this proposal the so-called ‘Liberals’ and those on the Left with their socialist national agenda can show if they are truly ‘pro-choice’. They can either show themselves to letting the people have the power of choice or they can illustrate that they are the party of economic slavery (Socialism)

Senator Mike Lee penned a superb editorial on the proposed BCRA. And it has one of the best ideas yet on the bureaucratic monstrosity known as Obamacare: Give people a choice in the matter. With this proposal the so-called ‘Liberals’ and those on the Left with their socialist national agenda can show if they are truly ‘pro-choice’. They can either show themselves to letting the people have the power of choice or they can illustrate that they are the party of economic slavery (Socialism)

In the editorial penned by Senator Mike Lee on the Republican proposal to shore up the collapsing Obamacare healthcare bureaucracy he proposes giving the people a choice in the matter:

And so, for all my frustrations about the process and my disagreements with the substance of BCRA, I would still be willing to vote for it if it allowed states and/or individuals to opt-out of the Obamacare system free-and-clear to experiment with different forms of insurance, benefits packages, and care provision options. Liberal states might try single-payer systems, while conservatives might emphasize health savings accounts. Some people embrace association health plans or so-called “medishare” ministry models. My guess is different approaches will work for different people in different places — like everything else in life.

Forget about the fact that this Repeal In Name Only’ will only serve to eviscerate the Republican party’s raison d’état in every election from 2010 on forward and will hand over this issue to the nation’s socialist left on a golden platter. Obamacare’s further collapse of will redound negatively to the GOP with this ‘change’ to the system. Set aside for a moment that a system that supposedly would lower costs and has done quite the opposite and Trump’s positive words for a socialist single payer system that is diametrically opposite to Conservative principles of limited, constitutional government.

Instead, let us look at the implications of Senator Mike Lee’s proposed modification to that measure. In essence, he wants to have a competition in the marketplace of ideas with regard to health care. We can once again prove the superiority of economic freedom [The free market] versus Economic slavery [Socialism] with Mike Lee’s proposal for the health care bill. If the socialist’s think that their system is better, let them prove it in the context of competition with the free-market.

Granted there are some faction’s of the socialist left that have the pretense of abhorring big government control of the means of production. Presumably they should also vehemently oppose Obamacare.

The nation’s socialist left has certain ideas on how a society should function while we on the right have vastly different ideas. The left advocates for ideas of economic slavery that are at least 500 years old and have yet work – word play with definitions aside. The Conservative – Right advocates for economic freedom. Some of the nation’s socialist left use the dodge that it really wasn’t their ideology in past authoritarian regimes such as the USSR because they failed to have ‘worker co-ops’ or some other amorphous  conceptions. Well, one of the ideas currently being foisted are healthcare co-opts, so our comrades on the left can put their ideological money where their months are and support this choice along with all the others.

So why not let the marketplace decide once again, which set of ideas are superior?

Shouldn’t the social Left welcome this chance to show the world that their ideology is superior and the best in fostering the cause of ‘progress’. The Left has a choice in this regard – they can let the free-market illustrate that their way is superior or they can illustrate that their ideology cannot stand up to the advantages of economic freedom.

 

JFK: Democrat or Republican? PragerU Video

 John F. Kennedy lowered taxes, opposed abortion, supported gun rights, and believed in a strong military. And he was a proud Democrat. But would he be one today? Author and talk show host Larry Elder explains.

Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h