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.
Remy channels his inner Elizabeth Warren to vilify the other side.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Re…
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: https://goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet’s leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won’t get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
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:
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.
These days the play-book on the subject healthcare from the left seems to consist of screaming that people will die no matter what is proposed. Their ‘solution’ is some version of national socialized healthcare, but shouldn’t we look at it’s failure elsewhere BEFORE imposing it on the states?
Word has it that 23 million people will DIE because of cuts to healthcare. But this isn’t taking place in the states, no this is occurring in a bastion of national socialized healthcare with the NHS. From the BBC
A&E cuts will hit 23m people, British Medical Association says
Nearly 23 million people in England – more than 40% of the population – could be affected by proposed cuts to A&E departments, doctors are warning.
Under the so-called “sustainability and transformation programme” (STP), England has been divided into 44 areas and each asked to come up with its own proposals.
After analysing local plans, the BMA found:
▪ 18 of them, covering a population of 22.9 million, involved the closing or downgrading of an A&E department
▪ 14 of them, responsible for 17.6 million patients, propose closing or merging a hospital
▪13 of them, covering a population of 14.7 million, have put forward closing hospital beds
But NHS England rejected the criticism. It argues changes will only take place when there is a viable plan to improve care elsewhere whether through centralising care at a nearby hospital or extending community services, such as with longer GP opening.
Now, according the low standard of discourse set by the socialist left in the states, 40% of the population in the UK WILL DIE!
According to the left, the only solution is national socialized healthcare [Or as Elizabeth Warren terms it: a ‘national single-payer plan.’] So shouldn’t we take a very long and hard look at that concept borne of socialism and examine it’s failure around the world in disparate places such as Venezuela and the UK?
As with every other socialist programme, the nation’s left is long on promises and short on results. We are seeing the same take place in the UK, and yet we are supposed to ignore these facts.
Remember how the Left promised ‘free healthcare’ and later on how Obamacare was supposed to lower premiums? And each time the situation gets worse and worse and the left’s only solution is more of the same but with even more grandiose and expensive government. Shouldn’t we finally listen to the saying that ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?