Arguing with Idiots Socialism Edition

Timothy Birdnow

Recently I posted this quote from Lawrence W. Reed about socialism. On Facebook I got some pushback, including from our old friend and labor union thug Marty McClimens.

Here we go:

Eric Nelson:

This is a hard truth going for every socialist movement going back to the French Revolution. The leadership always justifies taking the majority of the resources for themselves in order to govern effectively and then do whatever it takes to hold on to power because they don't want to live in the system they created. This is one reason I am in favor of term limits. Lawmakers would be less radical if they had o go back and live under the systems they created.

Tim replies:

Well said Eric Nelson and I totally agree. And how do we get a good system with the same people chewing the same abc gum? The Founding Fathers clearly thought politicians would be temporary workers who would serve a term or two and go home. They never dreamed we would have liftetime career guys. But then, the original U.S. government was supposed to be limited and relatively weak. It was the state level that was supposed to matter. Those days are LONG gone!

Marty McClimens chimes in:

I believe we can and do have many socialistic programs in our society. (Social Security, Fire Departments, National Parks, Military and the list goes on and on) and that is a good thing. True socialism as a form of government has never worked and never will. Just remember that exploitation is a capitalist virtue.

I retort:

Marty McClimens your argument muddies the definition of socialism. Social welfare programs are NOT socialism. Socialism is the ownership and/or control of the means of production and distribution. Social Security is not that, but it IS a strongarm system that takes money from the public and dolls it back in a niggardly fashion. As such it is theft, because it steals from some to give to others. It gives no dividend on anyone's savings. Politicians simply loot the fund when they wish. Were it not there most people would save money of their own accord and not rely on it. That system worked fine before social security was implemented, I might add. SS was Roosevelt's scheme to confiscate money for the treasury at the time.

BTW I wouldn't use that as an example if your purpose is to promote the idea; social security is going to bust in the next few decades, for the very reason all socialistic schemes fail - they run out of other people's money.

Marty, you clearly don't understand the definitional differences between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism is ultimately not a system at all but the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services by private individuals. Nobody is compelled to do business with you or vice versa. Your complaint is with corporatism, which is quite different. National Socialism was corporatism; the Nazis were socialists, but they didn't favor direct ownership of business but rather were content to run them by fiat with a private owner. (The Bolsheviks had a slogan in favor of Fascism at first - "First Brown then Red" showing they saw Fascism as a stage on the road to Communism.) That's the system we largely have now, with mega corporations squashing the smaller businesses that threaten them - often using the force of law.

Exploitation is not a "capitalist" virtue but a corporatist one (and a socialist one). I would point out that the brilliant G.K. Chesterton once said of corporatists "the difference between a socialist and a (corporatist) capitalist is a bigger paycheck". In the end both are sailing in the same direction. BTW why do you suppose everyone keeps trying socialism as a form of government even though it doesn't work?

The problem is that governments grow and seek more power, and always have these kinds of programs you mention "for the public welfare" and eventually you wind up with a socialist system. That is called Fabian Socialism (named after England's Fabian Society which advocated creeping socialism rather than revolution.) The way advocated by many Democrats in this country promotes Fabian Socialism under the guise of helping the poor or whatnot. In the final analysis you are taking money and property and labor from one person at gunpoint to give to another - we would call that robbery if done by a private individual. The welfare state is inherently immoral. The Founding Fathers understood that, which is why they sought a very limited federal government. In the end a powerful central government uses force to coerce people into things. It's what was known as the Forgotten Man. FDR coopted that phrase, but originally the forgotten man was the guy forced to pay for someone's bright idea that benefited someone else.

And I do mean force. If you withhold your tax money they will come to arrest you and if you resist they will kill you.

Not saying there aren't things that can and should be done by government, but every idea should be looked at through the prism of "do we have a right to do this". Now it's "how can we get away with doing this." Eventually we are going to run out of other people's money.

Remember the Commandment "thou shalt not steal"; that is the root of the argument against big government and socialism.

Sally Weekley also chimes in:

The continual conflating of socialism with communism (or the assumption that there is only one type of 'socialism' and that it is essentially 'communism', incognito) is not only wearying, it is simply incorrect.
And causes continual, unnecessary conflict in this country. Certainly there are some who are for straight-up communism ('old-school' communism, I'm sure) just as there are die-hards who are such extreme capitalists that they refuse to have any societal financial oversight whatsoever. They don't need police, or roads, or fire protection...th

I also retort:

Kindly explain the fundamental difference between communism and socialism Sally Weekley. I rather suspect you cannot actually give a definitional difference. In point of fact you are correct but only insofar as communism is the goal as opposed to the system. All communist countries called themselves socialist, and for a good reason. In all cases Socialism is defined as state ownership or control of the means of production and distribution. The Nazis were socialist. The Bolsheviks were socialist. Sweden and Norway are NOT socialist, but rather strongly capitalistic (even though they have a powerful social welfare system.) Sweden experiemented briefly with socialism during the '70's and discontinued the experiment as a failure. Now the Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than the U.S.; they have lower corporate tax rates, fewer regulations, etc. They can afford their social welfare schemes because they have low populations, little military spending, and import a lot of foreigners to run businesses and do work. That scheme is starting to unravel though as they are finding these immigrants aren't all they were cracked up to be. There are places in Sweden where Swedish girls don't dare go now. Be that as it may, I don't think you can defend much of your comment. In the final analysis it is an immoral system that legalizes theft, the taking of goods, property, and labor from a productive individual and gives it to another, while the politically connected skim off the top. That is theft - a violation of the Seventh Commandment and Natural Law. Capitalism is the natural order, whereby people freely, voluntarily exchange goods and services. Socialism is economics at the barrel of a gun. It only works because a socialistic society forces individuals to hand over their money. If a private individual did that we would call them a criminal.

Bob Clasen chimes in:

Sally WeekleyWhether a committee of Communists or a majority of my fellow citizens votes to take my money to spend on things they think in the public interest makes not much difference to me. None actually.

I reply:

Well said Bob Clasen Socialists are basically mobsters inside government. It's theft, whether anyone wants to admit that or not. In the end if you refuse to play along with the socialist they come to kill you, or break your kneecaps in some prison..

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:34 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1475 words, total size 9 kb.