#Socialists Against Big Government Part II

Part I proved what should be obvious: That governments are composed of groups of people and that socialist and communist governments are groups of people who collectively and directly own or regulate the means of production. Thus, the Leftist talking point that failed socialist and communist regimes of the past and present weren’t really socialist and communist has been shown to be a lie.
In this part we will demonstrate that the practical implications of this deception are dysfunctional in the extreme because their programme can only be implemented by force of arms and governments never give up power voluntarily.

It can be shown via the logic of the dictionary definitions that governments are merely groups of people with the authority to govern a particular region, state or nation. And that socialist and communist governments are merely groups of people who collectively own or regulate the means of production.

One is supposed to ignore the obvious and instead pretend that a group of people collectively and directly owning or regulating the means of production is some other vague entity – but not a government. The socialists will also insist that these reality defying facts absolve them of any responsibility for the mass murder and repression of the people collectively and directly owning or regulating the means of production. And why would they try to deceive the world over something like that?

How are the Socialist’s grandiose plans for a “Worker’s Paradise” supposed to function without a government?

Instead of the aforementioned ruling entity, the whole socialist edifice is supposed to be based on ‘Worker Co-ops’ after the state has ‘Withered away’ and other vague abstractions. One would expect that this extremely important part of the Marxist programme would have been fleshed out over the many centuries of its existence. And yet this does not seem to be the case. Marxists, Socialists and Communists the world over expended barrelfuls of ink over discussions on class warfare and their disdain for economic freedom [capitalism] but precious little on this allegedly vital aspect of their base ideology.

This glaring omission on the part of the National and International socialists has not gone unnoticed by many: Chomsky’s Economics

So, if the state isn’t going to own income-producing property, and private concerns are not going to own it, who is going to own it? Apparently, and this all very fuzzy, the means of production will somehow be collectively owned by the workers themselves, wherein we arrive at the silly concept of anarcho-syndicalism. Instead of greedy capitalists owning the corporation, the workers themselves will own it. But it will not be ownership in the form of individual shares that can be sold. That’s capitalism.

No, he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. As Mises writes in Socialism, “as an aim, Syndicalism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dared to write openly and clearly in its favor.”

We’re supposed to trust them that they will do it correctly THIS TIME despite the myriad times in the past that National and International socialists have failed to accomplish the very same task. Socialists only want to take over the world, and only afterwards will they work out the pesky details of how ‘The people collectively and directly owning or regulating the means of production’ WON’T really be a government later on… but everyone can trust them to do it correctly this time around. We have to let freedom pass from memory before we can see what’s in their plans. If this song and dance sounds a bit familiar it’s because it is. The terms have just been altered to oppress the innocent.

Socialism can only be implemented via government force.

The basic premise of socialism is epitomized by the infamous phrase:

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

In all of their grandiose explanations of class warfare and the dictatorship of the proletariat the socialists are a bit vague on how one is supposed to spread the wealth around without the central authority to accomplish this goal. In general, most people do not want their hard earned property to be taken from them and given to others. But in the fanciful world of the socialists, everyone will gladly hand over their property to everyone else while unicorns prance about under rainbows and showers of gold. It will also have to be a continuous process of people letting others take their money for ‘the children’.

Yes, business owners the world over will only be too happy to hand over factories and corporate facilities they have invested in sweat and toil for years simply because a few blokes show up on their doorstep on some bright and sunny morn. Who can forget this oft recurring meme in many a movie or Broadway production?

The fact is in most cases the threat of force will have to be utilized in the taking ‘From each according to his abilities’. This is commonly known as theft and most people will not voluntarily let this happen to them. Thus there has to be a group of people with the authority and the firepower to take other people’s money. Leftists themselves offer the best illustration of why this is pure rubbish: How many of them hand over their property to others on a continuous basis?

Has a government ever voluntarily written itself out of existence?

So we have proven that in the storied centuries of socialism’s existence, most of a nation’s left have been quite vague in it’s supposed to work in one key aspect. Second, we have shown that governmental force would be required to implement the Socialist – left’s grandiose plans. The question then becomes, do groups of people in the form of a government ever wither away? This is answered by a very relevant quote from Lord Acton: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

That aphorism that succinctly answers that question with a resounding no. If history has taught us anything, it is that governments only tend to crave more expansive powers. Governments rarely, if ever devolve power and ‘withered away’. This happens with about the same frequency of unicorns prancing about under showers of gold.

And yet we’re supposed to believe the fiction that a group of people brought in under vague pretenses that attains tremendous power will somehow dissipate itself.

The fact is this little dodge from the socialist is nothing more than a fallacy wrapped in a lie. Governments are composed of groups of people, but somehow the socialists will tell you that there is a distinction there based on their criteria. And that lie just by coincidence absolves their bloody ideology of all of it’s past crimes against humanity. But don’t expect the socialists to come out and explain how that system is supposed to work, they haven’t had time in the past few hundred years to figure it out. Besides that fact that their ideology REQUIRES the use of government force of arms, and it never seems to disband itself.

In Part III we will examine the implications of taking the word of the socialist-Left seriously.

Reference Excerpt: Socialism is Not “Worker Control of the Means of Production”

One of the Socialist-left’s preferred ways of absolving themselves of the absolute failure and mass murder of their base ideology is to utilise various semantic word games to foster the mythology that socialism has yet to be tried. Not only is this complete balderdash, but it highlights the fundamental difference between right and left with regard to private property rights. In essence, the right believes in this fundamental concept that is a bulwark of freedom, the Socialist-Left does not.

The author’s main point is that while the vestiges of economic freedom allow one to actually fulfil the alleged objective of the socialist programme, the fact that this is insufficient for them reveals a fundamental difference between Right and Left. People can and do operate worker’s co-ops under the auspices of economic freedom. This is perfectly acceptable under a “laissez-faire constitutional republic that protects private property rights”. To each his own and all that.

The key difference between a system of economic freedom[ Free enterprise] and economic slavery [Socialism] is that property rights are not protected.

From Socialism is Not “Worker Control of the Means of Production”

So long as “socialism” is taken to mean a mode of production, people are perfectly free to live and work as “socialists” under a laissez-faire constitutional republic that protects private property rights. So such “socialists” should advocate for the political system that protects their right to live as they choose with any property they have produced or voluntarily traded for: a laissez-faire capitalist constitutional republic.

But no, in reality, socialists don’t want private property rights upheld by the government. This is what actually distinguishes them from advocates of capitalism. Their essential idea is a political one: private property rights are to be abolished. Workers should seize productive property from those who invested their time and money to build it, either through the “direct action” of organized union gangs, or through some type of formal government.

Economic freedom means that each individual owns their time and labour and the results of their productivity are theirs to keep and do as they wish. Contrast this with economic slavery where an individual’s time and labour are under the purview of the ‘collective’.

Note: We are using the terminology ‘collective’ since it means the same thing as a group of people or a group of people that form a government because it should be bloody obvious they are the same entity. Whether or not a group of people label themselves a government or a flying purple people eater makes no difference.

The plain fact here is that the Socialist-left cannot abide private property rights. Specifically, they cannot abide people owning themselves. Let us be clear on this point: If an individual owns themselves, it logically follows that the individual owns the product of their time and labour. Conversely, the only way the collective can rightfully own the product of an individual’s time and labour is by owning the individual.

It’s not that the Socialist-Left is trying to justify theft, because for them that would be condoning property rights. No, their mindset has to be that everyone is a part of the ‘collective’ and that property has to be owned collectively – up to and including every individual.

This mindset is seen in how they approach the common sense civil right of armed Self-Defense. For those of the Right, it is patently obvious that an individual has this Right, and will answer in the affirmative when queried about it. This is not the case for those on the Socialist-Left, for they will not even answer the question. For the Right of self-defense signifies self ownership, the lack thereof means that one’s existence is up to the whims of the ‘collective’. The Socialist-Left cannot even admit to this point.

If people owns themselves, they own the products of their labour and it cannot be ‘redistributed’ at the whim of the ‘collective’. It’s only by the vestiges of collective ownership that “other people’s money” can be seized and ‘redistributed’

The author concludes with this:

Socialism is not about workers getting together and starting their own companies. It’s about eliminating private property rights in order to forcibly seize what the most productive individuals in the society have produced. Morally, the essence of socialism is coercive injustice.

 

Today The Nation’s Socialist Left Should Be Asking Themselves: “Are we the baddies?”

We begin with a humorous video from Mitchell and Webb:

Perhaps our Comrades on the Left should take this as a humorous inspiration in their self examination and perhaps they should be asking this question of themselves. Consider how they’ve conducted themselves over the past few months. They and their base ideology have been losing for years now and yet they still think of themselves as being on the ‘right side of history’.

Their mindset of having a birthright to power is palpable at times in their words, deeds and actions.

They truly think that their way is ‘progress’ and anything short of that is a travesty of justice (Socialist and otherwise). History is not allowed to reject the siren song of the left and it’s collective ideology. It’s only when the nation moves toward the Socialist left that all is well and good in the universe, anything else is ‘reactionary’ and verboten.

This mindset also manifests itself in their reaction to events.

They cheer on the use of violence against their political opponents, and fail to see the irony in truly acting like the Fascist-left of the past while maintaining the self description of being “Antifa”.

To them, the ends justifies the means and if those involve weaponry, their only complaint is whether or not the shooter’s aim was true.

They gaze upon the sheer insanity of their socialist brethren and fail to see the same in themselves.

From the Right Scoop: ‘Hopefully everyone is looking in the mirror tonight’ – Chuck Todd blames everyone else

And this doesn’t even touch on the subject of the blood soaked history of their base ideology with an estimated 100 Million dead and a tendency for repression. So perhaps those out there of the national socialist left should be asking this question of themselves: Are we the baddies?

A Tsunami Of Absurdity

How does ‘The Onion’ stay relevant the days?

Each days sees news stories and opinion pieces that defy logic and common sense to a point far beyond disbelief. We begin with an item from The College fix: Feminist researcher invents ‘intersectional quantum physics’ to fight ‘oppression’ of Newton

Whitney Stark argues in support of “combining intersectionality and quantum physics” to better understand “marginalized people” and to create “safer spaces” for them, in the latest issue of The Minnesota Review.

Because traditional quantum physics theory has influenced humanity’s understanding of the world, it has also helped lend credence to the ongoing regime of racism, sexism and classism that hurts minorities, Stark writes in “Assembled Bodies: Reconfiguring Quantum Identities.”

But one can surmise that if the national socialist left wants to defy logic and ignore the science of there being only two genders then what’s is to stop them from going ‘round the bend even further?

And then there are these additional items that make one question what is going on:

From NewsBusters: USA Today: Trump Driving Liberals to Yoga

The Telegraph: Exclusive: Manchester suicide bomber used student loan and benefits to fund terror plot

And finally, The Resurgent: If You Don’t Think Progressivism is a Disease, Check This Out

But then again, these were just the items from yesterday, and with the rapid turn of events they almost sound reasonable one day later. Lord help us all.

The National Socialist Left Cannot Win.

The Atlantic presented an article ‘Why Can’t the Left Win? And as usual problem with such extensive self examination is that it usually accompanied by copious amount of denial that obscures and thus renders such exercises useless.

But in an effort to be helpful to our comrades on the national socialist left here are but a few suggestions that can put them back on the road to recovery. One area that they could improve their lot is by being honest for once instead of relying on lies and deception in trying to make ‘progress’ with their socialist national agenda. This includes their getting together and having one coherent policy on who they are, so with that purpose in mind, my we suggest the following:

1. Stop pretending that virtually everything the government does is socialist.

Converse with those on the national socialist left for any length of time and one of two diverse assertions will crop up. One is that virtually everything the government does is socialism. The argument is usually couched in the form of the presentation being presented without factual backup (because there is none) followed up with how this ‘socialism’ has been somehow beneficial. Apparently the idea here is that leftist of this mindset thinking that their ideological legerdemain can be slipped into the conversation as factual and the discussion turned to the question of beneficial government operations.

The problem for those on the national socialist left of this mindset is that this idea is contrary to the definition.

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxisttheory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

2. Stop pretending that the left isn’t socialist and that failed socialist regimes weren’t socialist.

This is the other diverse assertion made by the left and yes, it is in direct contradiction to the first assertion. (A prime example of Leftist ‘diversity’, but we digress…)

Of course, this is an offshoot of the granddaddy of all leftist lies – that ‘socialism has never been tried’. Apparently the left has converted the ‘bug’ that statism requires an authoritarian government into a ‘feature’ as a way of denying that socialist regimes are actually socialist. Well, the fact is that this is how socialism has to work. One cannot ‘redistribute the wealth’ without the authority to do so. And one cannot tamp down the grousing of the people over unfulfilled promises without the authority to do so.

From a scientific standpoint, if one runs an experiment in multiple locations and conditions over a time span of almost 500 years and essentially obtains the same result each time, it can be said that this is how it will work. The past century has seen the same results time after time with the experiment of socialism and totalitarianism has been the result in most cases. That is the reality of socialism, to deny that to be the case would be like trying to deny that a person’s sex is set by their chromosomes.

These two dichotomies are a natural consequence of the left’s base ideology. This unfortunate tendency has experienced such malignant growth to the point that the are those on the nation’s socialist left who don’t know how to properly lie on the subject. They don’t know if they should deny being what they are or go full bore in claiming everything the government does is socialism. Getting rid of the tendency for deception and having coherent and non-contradictory talking point would greatly enhance the Left’s credibility. Rejecting their base ideology would help as well, but they need to take baby steps.

Mayday 2017: The schizophrenic national Socialist Left

Mayday is more than a time for worker protests where they are permitted (outside of so-called “Worker’s Paradises), it is also a season celebration and a changeover from warnings of Climate Change to Global Warming. These days it also highlights a very curious phenomena of those on the Left side of the political spectrum. This the presence of contradictory beliefs espoused by the left, with some trying to claim virtually everything the government does is socialistic while other’s parrot the traditional claim that it has never really been tried before.

One of the best examples of part of this schizophrenic phenomena is the infamous screed “75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America”. In order to prove this contention the author makes up a very curious ‘definition’ of the word socialism.

For reference, this is how the Oxford English dictionary defines the term Socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Curiously enough, this factual definition didn’t find it’s way into the opinion voiced by the author of this bit of socialist propaganda. For those on the nation’s socialist left, making up their own facts is a cottage industry. In this case the author creates an absurd definition wholly disconnected from reality.

Socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability.

With this rather unique ‘definition’ of the word in tow, the author is then able to have ‘socialism’ take credit for virtually every positive governmental action since the dawn of time.

Unfortunately for the author the factual definition of the word references ‘the means of production, distribution, and exchange’ and fails to mention the taxation and normal actions taken by most governments. And of course, there is also that pesky little ‘overthrow of capitalism’ part that invalidates the rest of the author’s socialist screed.

The plain fact is that words only have value if they have set definitions. Without this vital reference point words have no meaning and the resulting discourse means nothing. But it does help indicating the divide within the left that we celebrate today. Because if this is what part of the left holds as fundamental belief, then virtually every government since the beginning of time was ‘socialist’.

For example, one of the left’s favourite little lies is that a certain Socialist workers party wasn’t actually a Socialist workers party. Given the definition presented the contradiction is manifest since the nation under the dictates of said Socialist workers party certainly had roads, libraries, sewer systems and other vestiges of normal governmental service.

And then there is another faction of the national socialist left who parrot this absurd claim:

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people — after all, wasn’t the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves “socialist,” but none have actually tried socialism.

Apparently the national socialist left gives themselves a neat excuse for every time their base ideology has crashed and burned to the detriment of billions of people. They simply claim that the overarching apparatus necessary to ‘redistribute the wealth’ and keep the people in line in the constant state of terror to maintain power really isn’t really socialism.

The problem for the national socialist left is that those two assertions are completely adverse to each other and reality itself. The ‘definition’ of socialism conjured up by the Left has no logical bearing to it’s real definition and is merely a veiled attempt at claiming success for socialism where none has ever existed. While the ‘socialism has never been tried’ claim is blatant attempt at excusing the failure of socialism down through it’s 500 year history.

These two assertions highlight a major rife within the left, indicative of an ideology that is contradictory in nature and is about to rip itself apart. Let us hope that it does so soon before it’s body count increases a few more million.

Ref: Thanks to the House Freedom Caucus

From The Resurgent: POLLING: House Freedom Caucus Saved GOP From 2018 Disaster

Whatever negative things opponents may say about members of the House Freedom Caucus, it’s dishonest to say that they acted against the will of their constituents. Not only do their districts strongly favor full repeal of ObamaCare but in only one member’s case did they prefer the half-measure ACHA bill to leaving ObamaCare intact.

This carefully researched and modeled data makes clear that each member of the HFC did the explicit will of their constituents. Members’ resolve to stand by their principles and districts should be reinforced by these findings. They have nothing to fear from electoral threats, whether by President Trump or their own Republican leadership.