"Precisely where is the historical, functional working model of socialism that socialists can cite as proof that socialism works?"
You know, where socialists can point to a time in history and say, "Here, here it is. Here is the example of how socialism not only works, but succeeds?"
Something tangible and empirical that would provide economists, philosophers, politicians, sociologists, and even skeptics an actual model they could study and learn from and see with their own eyes how socialism works?
Because if that existed, then I could see where the left might have a point. They'd have empirical proof that socialism did indeed work (well, once, anyway), and we could study and learn from that example to see how and why. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. There is no example throughout all of history that socialism works or ever has worked*. And this simple observation has GRAVE ramifications not only for socialists, but for all of society. Namely, the left is gambling the entire economic future of the world world on a...
theory.
Ignore the millennia of historical and economic proof that a freer people do better than an enslaved one.
Ignore the billions of people who have died over thousands of years and hundreds of wars to grant us the freedoms of Western Civilization.
And ignore the morality of letting people keep the majority of the fruits of their labor.
No, you see some really good theoreticians in Academia over the past 50 years studied the ideas of an 1840's parasitic hack who lived off of his buddy Engel's and never worked for a living. And they have this theory, see? And this theory is to eliminate private property and put everything under the state. Never mind it's never worked once in the history of the world. And never mind that it usually kills more people through starvation than nuclear bombs did in war when implement. The difference is these really smart people have DOCTORATES in the LIBERAL ARTS, and they know more than the cumulative 30 billion people that have lived since the Greeks (and certainly more than you). So let's risk the entire world's population's freedom, futures, and livelihoods on a
It is this insane risk that not only appalls me, but frightens me. Damn well near half of the West's population (in the form of people who vote left) is willing to risk, basically everything, for a theory. A hunch. A gamble. A pathetic religion, just as unfounded as all the others, all so they can have "teh feelz" and actually fool themselves into thinking there's some magical path to a free lunch.
Of course, I wish it was only people's entire financial and economic futures the left is willing to gamble on an unfounded theory. But sadly, they don't stop there. Oh no. Enter in feminism.
Feminism today, no matter how you slice it, is simply matriarchy. That's cute you've all managed to train young college girls into thinking "it's just the equal treatment of men and women." (Very nice, now go participate in a slut walk and carry a mattress around). But I ask again, where in the entire history of the world does an example of a successful matriarchy exist? Is there any point in time forcing women to be men and vice versa resulted in a successful and longevous society? There's certainly examples of "matriarchies," but most of them are third-world crap-holes that don't have electricity (duly noting "Iceland," the one 1st world country dubiously included on the list, which STILL went bankrupt in 2007). Some might point to the Amazons of the middle east, but they are largely of Greek myth (and obviously short lived). About the ONLY historical account of a successful matriarchy was the AMAZONIANS (not to be confused with AMAZONS) of Futurama. And even there the entire male population was wiped out by Snu Snu.
But despite the absolute absence of a successful matriarchy (or perhaps "genderless society") those really smart, 1960's feminists had a theory, damnit! And that was the world's entire problems were caused by men! And if we could just get women to rule the world, then peace would ensue and we'd all be singing kumbaya together!
Of course, never mind this resulted in divorce rates not seen since ever. A decline in women's happiness. A division between the sexes. A welfare state. The replacement of fathers with a government check. And two full generations of mal-raised children. You see these self-important, upper-class, white feminists had a THEORY, and it was very important that they risk the entire romantic, familial, and love lives of the entire western world to make their socialist utopia a reality.
There's even a third unfounded theory the left insists gambling the future lives, safety, and happiness of the world on - multi-culturalism. Once again, show me where it's worked. Point me to the model where different races not only "tolerate" each other, but thrive and grow faster than they would separately. South Africa I think both blacks and whites agree it's not ideal. I'm sure if you talk to the Swedes in private about Malmo not everybody is happy. About the "best' model we have of true multi-culturalism is Brazil, and that is at best a second world, zika-infested, crap-hole.
But once again, the left have a THEORY. And by gum, despite there being no historical or empirical evidence (and a lot of genuine evidence to the contrary), they're going to shove multi-culturalism down your throats whether you like it or not. Because despite millions of years of evolution, history, and genetics, this time it's different because they're professors and academians from the 60's and 70's. And shucks howdy they know better than nature! (Oh, and by the way, if you disagree with them, then you're a racist).
The point is socialism, leftism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is a religion. It's a groundless, baseless, fanatical belief worthless people have to give their worthless lives faux meaning. And the three largest "tenets" or "principles" of the leftist religion today are forced economic equality, the elimination of the sexes, and the forced integration of the races. However, just like all religions, there is also no empirical proof that these things are preferable, let alone feasible. But feasibility and practicality be damned. It is more important to socialism's followers and zealots that humanity come to heel under their baseless religion than to let society advance, succeed, and live their lives as they see fit. Ergo leftists have no moral qualms about forcing humanity to gamble EVERYTHING, and I do mean, EVERYTHING on an ill-thought out, self-serving, psychotic theory, a bunch of ego-masturbating spoiled brat children from the 60's came up with.
The economic system that provides us the goods and services we need just so we can live?
Naw, let's tinker with it because Maduro and Chavez have a religious obsession with socialism.
The nuclear family which over 2 million years evolved to be the optimal structure to raise a family?
Screw that and screw the mental happiness and health of the children. We 60's feminists need validation for our doctorates in Women's Studies no matter how much it destroys the black community. Men are women, women are men, fish bicycle, exchange the father for a government check.
And the fact that humans naturally separate by race, though can peacefully interact with each other?
Screw that! Bring in a culture honeycombed with radical, suicide bombing, ideologues and let them lose among a population they're sworn to destroy.
In short, the left wants to risk everything that brings happiness, joy, and reason to live to satiate their religious egos. The ability of the economy to function normally and provide the necessities that are required for life. The ultimate happiness and joy that comes from finding love and having children. And the right to be safe and associate with whom you please. You take those three things away and you have the only real model of socialism that ever existed.
The USSR
North Korea
East Germany
Venezuela
Communist China
And the embryonic psycho circuses that Western nations are quickly becoming.
Only leftists could be so narcissistic, ego-maniacal, and evil to take such a gamble with other people's lives in the face of these historical odds all so in their little inferior minds they could play god for a short, mortal 75 years.
Oh well, enjoy the decline.
__________________________________________
http://www.soundcloud.com/aaron-clarey/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/
Amazon Affiliate
*Admittedly the left loves to run towards Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as the "working model" of socialism. Take away oil, you take Norway off the list. Give Sweden a couple more decades, and they will take themselves off the list. And Denmark highlights something all the handful of "successful" socialist models have - they're not that much more socialist than the US. Our taxation rates (bar Sweden) are all within 10% of each other. Add to this fact that the democrat party, not to mention all leftist/labor/left parties in Europe are still advocating MORE government, then obviously these countries are NOT the model they had in mind. They demand even more socialism.
The other minor thing is that outside these precious 4 Scandinavian exceptions to the rule, socialism's track record is horrible. For every Norway or Sweden there's 3-4 Ethiopia's, Zimbabwe's, North Korea's, USSR's, East Germany's, Greece's, Venezuela's, Cambodia's, China's, and Vietnam's. And not to mention the largest peace-time, and war-time death tolls. So before leftists come on here and present the "I Know a Tall Asian Argument," there really does not exist proof socialism has worked once in history.
19 comments:
There is a working model in history. It is the Christian monasteries which sometines survived for centuries without Vatican money or alms after the initial real estate capital infusion. In many monasteries all monks got only a small allowance and took only what was needed for survival. But there is a caveat. It works only with a highly spiritual non-materialistic unified singleminded group. Barely 0,01% of the human population would be that spiritual in real life. That is why socialism with humanity at this level if development cannot work. The world would have to be a quasi paradise already if Marx' model had a chance.
You forgot the leftists greatest accomplishment...Cuba. I am always told how great the healthcare is there...? Of course the lefties are taking us down that road with Zerocare. Oh goody, utopia is just around the corner, just need more socialism/communism/tyranny... Yay socialism.
Longtime reader here...
I agree with your conclusions. That said, I think it's useful to define "socialism", because Leftists will undercut your argument by redefining what socialism is to support their worldview. For example, obvious socialist countries like Cuba, North Korea, Soviet Union and lately Venezuela cannot be defended as "successful" by any objective reading of history.
What about "soft socialist" countries such as Denmark, Sweden, France and Canada? There are many shades of grey to this analysis and Leftists could argue this list of countries are successful by many objective measures. So how do we as Conservatives/Libertarians/Anarcho-Capitalists/Alt-Right thinkers persuasively argue against this line of attack?
Usually we argue that there exists a slippery slope which is not very persuasive (it hasn't worked!) and plays into the long slow decline into more government control, more collectivism because this IS the Progressive gameplan - incremental progress. And we allow it.
The only reason that awful system in the USSR lasted as long as it did is because of a perverse form of barter and trading of favors and resources. So they did have a mutant form of it like we do with crony capitalism, but at least we are not going hungry or eating contaminated food.
Socialism can work on a small scale. The family and hunter/gatherer tribes are socialist enterprises. The problem is we evolved in a hunter/gatherer groups and that's why it sounds good to a lot of people when the socialists try to scale that up even though socialism doesn't scale up.
Great piece Capt. Kudos.
Since it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above a single digit that a socialist economy is an utter failure, why would anyone advocate for it? Are these people just stupid, lazy, or too ignorant to figure it out for themselves. Is it possible that the millions of people who espouse this insane system are completely nuts? How could so many people be so wrong?
Shhhh!...don’t tell anybody, but the answer lies in this simple one line explanation: Communism, socialism, and fascism are not some intellectual doctrines or belief mechanisms, like science or philosophy, that politicians, media pundits or eggheads actually believe in, but are mere tools used to obtain power, influence, and, above all, easily obtained wealth.
People need to understand that these people are not high IQ types that actually believe this bullshit. They advocate for it because they benefit from it. And that’s the bottom line.
Hey Captain Norway is actually less feminist than the West. Most women there do not work full time and stay at home with their new born baby for 12 months before going back to work. Most stay marry and woman report greater happiness than in the west. Also add the fact that unlike other countries in Europe they have taken fewer refugees in their country. I also looked at tax rates per country and to my surprise Australia is almost the same level as Norway and we here have a lot of Natural resources like Coal.
All I am saying is that it may also be other factors than just oil for why Socialism is somewhat working in Norway.
Well, you could see that Medieval society was "socialistic". Before book land, the state, the king, owned all the means of production, i.e., all the land. True, the wealth generated by the socialist methods of production were taken by the king to be granted to supporters (nobles) who were also granted control over land and the attached resources (serfs). But there is nothing in Marxist doctrine that requires the spreading of the wealth equally.
"First, what is the best the socialists, in their writings, can offer us? What do the most optimistic of them say? That our subsistence will be guaranteed, while we work; that some of us, the best of us, may earn a surplus above what is actually necessary for our subsistence; and that surplus, like a good child, we may "keep to spend." We may not use it to better our condition, we may not, if a fisherman, buy another boat with it, if a farmer, another field ; we may not invest it, or use it productively ; but we can spend it like the good child, on candy — on something we consume, or waste it, or throw it away.
"Could not the African slave do as much? In fact, is not this whole position exactly that of the negro slave? He, too, was guaranteed his sustenance; he, too, was allowed to keep and spend the extra money he made by working overtime; but he was not allowed to better his condition, to engage in trade, to invest it, to change his lot in life. Precisely what makes a slave is that he is allowed no use of productive capital to make wealth on his own account. The only difference is that under socialism, I may not be compelled to labor (I don't even know as to that — socialists differ on the point), actually compelled, by the lash, or any other force than hunger. And the only other difference is that the negro slave was under the orders of one man, while the subject of socialism will be under the orders of a committee of ward heelers. You will say, the slave could not choose his master, but we shall elect the ward politician. So we do now. Will that help much? Suppose the man with a grievance didn't vote for him?"
--Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson
Of course, historically, the socialist methods of production have not consistently provided enough for the subsistence of all the population, see Venezuela 2016.
"No True Socialism (Scottsman)" fallacy, Cappy.
In their minds, they don't have to point to an example. They just claim that it has never been done right yet, but would work if it were, so give them the chance (and power) and they will show you.
Oh, yeah... cede them that power and they'll show you real dun good.
The question I prefer is which place has gotten better as it has become more socialist, this solves the Scandinavia question, which was literally (in Sweden's case) the richest country in the world pre-socialism, with all the positives we now liked to associate with Scandinavian socialism already in place (no poverty, high life expectancies, etc etc).
Norway is the one you can argue, but its such a petro state its obviously not broadly applicable.
Sweden's and Nordic Countries success had little to do with socialism, see:
https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396/ref=zg_bs_11089_10
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Unexceptionalism_(book)
One could say that the welfare state was the consequence of these countries success and not the tumbled-in-the-head-weltanschauung we often hear from the left. It is the left propaganda and falsification of the history promoted by Swedish left and their friends abroad that promoted this wagon pulling the horse falsity. The Nordic "socialism" was a natural economic equilibrium attained by a small and homogeneous population sharing the same culture and values - pretty much large families - built with skills, high working ethics and promotion of superior intelligence. I.e., the normal way a society of people should function.
You forgot the climate change religion based on cooked data.
Socialism only "works for a while" when you start with enough money, wealth or resources that was created or developed by non socialists. Systems with socialism do not grow or prosper - they only decline and pile up debt which is captured famously by the Margaret Thatcher quote "Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money".
Excellent article Capt.
Hey Aaron,
Here's the problem - the modern day socialists don't see the problem. They either fall to the issue of "it hasn't been done right yet", to ignoring the problems of the past. For instance, on rabble.ca I have recently had a discussion with a socialist who was basically saying that capitalists like myself don't look at data, and only have sentiment to stand behind. He provided "empirical" data that Thatcher was bad for Britain because unemployment rose in the 1980 and stayed high for much of the 1980s. The point that this happened in other countries at the same time, or were consequences of Thatcher's predecessors were irrelevant to him - he had found correlation (and therefore causation). Nothing I could say could stand up to it because I wasn't being empirical - even when I presented data with correlation. If it didn't line up with his worldview, then it was garbage.
I finally figured out his real motives when I accused him of being a Marxist. He denied such, even though his posts were filled with Marxist language (lifted almost verbatim from Das Kapital). When I asked him about environmental degradation in the former Soviet Union, or the mass starvation of Ukrainians - the truth came out. He stated that there was "no documented evidence" of mass starvations under Stalin - this was a carefully crafted right-wing conspiracy to make socialism look bad. ON the subject of environmental damage, he claimed this ALL happened AFTER 1991, when criminals supported by America sold off Soviet assets to the oligarchs, and these "capitalist thieves" damaged the environment. I didn't bother asking how this worked if the Aral Sea started shrinking in the 1940s...
I have a question. So as I understand it from a friend who considers himself a Marxist, it goes like this.
1.) Capitalism leads to huge accumulation of wealth and power by corporations.
2.) Corporations bribe politicians and get politicians in their pocket.
3.) Corporations then push for politicians to push for open border, crony trade deals, and other dubious legislation.
4.) Rapid advancement of technologies eventually then leads to less and less jobs. (See: Cashiers etc etc.)
5.) The combination of sending jobs overseas, technological advancement, etc. lead to a corporate tyranny where by the corporations undermine the nation and relegate the people say for example in the United States to that of the third world in the long run.
6.) This is the long term view of capitalism and where it leads and where Marxism has validity.
I do see this happening over the course of several decades. Clearly to some extent this is definitely happening. I believe Marxists have definitely pointed out the problem with Capitalism. Now you may argue that with a completely free market, government wouldn't get in bed with the corporations and therefore there would be no corruption. The idea of this being a possibility is about as realistic as the socialist utopian idea that centralizing power won't lead to tyranny. See what I mean?
Seems to me that both sides are flawed because of the nature of humanity.
I can't see any free for all unregulated form succeeding. I give you the failings of socialism. We had not one but two examples, Germany and Korea, of an ethnically and culturally homogeneous people being split in two, one side with heavily regulated capitalism and the other with socialism. You got a West Germany with BMWs and Benzes, and an East Germany with a Trabant. A South Korea that went from peasant farmers to a 1st world country while North Korea is a shambles.
I put free market Libertarians in the same utopia boat the socialists have. The free market leads to monopoly. Money and resources do get concentrated, as we saw in the oil/steel/railroad trust days, and today. A company used to not be able to own multiple media outlets, Clinton signed law allowing a free for all in radio and now like 2 companies own all the stations. Companies sell at a loss until driving out competition, then raise the prices. Many farmers lost their farms to the Union Pacific because of that. People with consolidated power under socialism or money under capitalism operate as amorally as need be to survive in their fishbowls. I've read your adventures in the banking industry. All those corporate hacks know they're killing the peasant workers and poisoning the land in their new Chinese factories (after all, they fled the OSHA and environmental regs), same as the ChiCom leaders know, but both sides are making coin off the poor working man there who has zero say-so. The officials of the Workers' Paradise would just as soon shoot any union organizer there, and not see the irony.
Japan was able to make capitalism work for all Japanese and has quite a bit of economic equity while keeping a clean and functioning country in spite of all the industry. Somehow they keep the plutocrats from running amok like robber barons- corps work for Japan, not the other way. Russia wasn't able to keep their kleptocrats from using capitalism to rape the country's resources while the people suffered until Putin replaced Yeltsin and jailed a lot of the billionaires. It was like when the mafia or drug gangs (talk about the ultimate free market, any illegal black market) made enough money to buy off cops and judges, then de facto became the law no one could vote out.
I don't know. In the 50s, the corporations were doing their best AND paying their union workforces (one breadwinner was all that was needed in even the most humble jobs) quite well. The vast suburbs didn't build themselves. Now, some people make out while most have everyone of working age in the family working for a worse wage. Something was lost.
Socialism is obviously so good it must be MANDATORY!
To be totally fair, Cappy, I'm not sure South Africa is a good example of multiculturalism in action, be it a success or a failure. South Africa is more of an example of greed fucking up a country for all involved.
Post a Comment