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.

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.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Our Emphasis]

#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.

 

 

 

How can there be record gun sales without a change in the ‘300 Million guns’ factoid?

The past few years have seen the pithy little factoid ‘300 Million guns’ being bandied about with little regard to its accuracy. One cannot have a record number of anything flowing into the marketplace without a change in it’s quantity. This would be akin to a dozens fire hoses filling up a swimming pool without a change in the water level. The weaponsman ran the numbers and came up with better estimate of 412-660 Million.

There are certain factoids that tend to be tossed out without any thought to their logic or accuracy. When it comes to certain subject matter, many journalists would rather parrot these ‘facts’ instead of taking the time to research their source or even their accuracy. The ‘300 Million guns’ is one such factoid, but then again the gun grabbers have never been sticklers for accuracy, what with Terry McAuliffe (D.) making the claim that that the United States loses “93 million Americans a day to gun violence.”

The weaponsman took a hard look at the issue and ran the numbers:

We believe that the correct number is much higher — somewhere between 412 and 660 million. You may wonder how we came to that number, so buckle up (and cringe, if you’re a math-phobe, although it never gets too theoretical): unlike most of the academics and reporters we linked above, we’re going to use publicly available data, and show our work.

What if we told you that one ATF computer system logged, by serial number, 252,000,000 unique firearms, and represented only those firearms manufactured, imported or sold by a relatively small number of the nation’s tens of thousands of Federal Firearms Licensees?

Bearing arms looked this issue as well and has the best internet meme on the subject:

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.