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.