Socialism

[Stan]

One has to define clearly what Socialism is.

[CoAspen]

What, you should want everyone to be on the same page? Where is the fun in that!!

[Bravus]

'Socialism', in the broadest definition, is the idea that society exists and that we have some responsibility for others, not just for ourselves. That is often understood in relation to governments having an active role in sharing that responsibility. The Bible definitely strongly supports the first concept - responsibility for others, particularly the vulnerable. Many Christians say it should do that through charity rather than through government, and it's great when it's done, but when the political system is set up in such a way to actively undo the results of charity, I think there's a responsibility to also challenge that. Perhaps, too, as Naomi has indicated, many see charity itself as a problem - at least incoming if not outgoing.

In practice, as I said earlier, everyone contributing here thinks government should have some role. No one is calling for anarchy. What that role should be, and how it should be shared between the federal, state and local levels is what we are largely discussing here.

[joeb]

Wow.  This topic exploded.  I was wondering if anyone would even be interested in it.

How many people here have actually researched the beginnings of socialism?  What did its authors design it to be?  What type of government did they see it as? 

I've done some research into this.  The original authors of socialism saw it as a very totalitarian form of government.  In fact, they saw it as the "cure" for the French Revolution.  Now, if you compare the French and American Revolutions you will see the main difference in philosophy being that the framers of the US saw God as an integral part of both the country and the government.  The Frenchmen did exactly the opposite.  They completely eliminated God from government.  The founders of socialism saw it as the cure for French "democracy", which was democracy in name only, and they made the same mistake the authors of the French Revolution made.  They completely ignored God.  They wanted Him to have nothing to do with it.  And, they also saw the people who resisted socialism as being treated as animals by their own government.  (I have a quote for this as I'm sure some people will not like this but I don't have the book with me right now.)

Max Eastman was the first editor of "The Masses" socialist magazine.  When he graduated from college here in the US he was a very strong socialist.  Then he went to Russia during the Stalin years.  By the time he left there he had plainly stated that "Stalinism is socialism".  I think it is wise to listen to a man like this who was indoctrinated into socialism during his college years and so grew to dislike it after seeing it put into practice that he rejected it completely.   Friedrich Hayek, who was a contemporary of the authors of socialism, says that who say there is a democratic socialism might as well be saying there is a democratic totalitarianism.  Obviously this just cannot be.  They are poles apart.  In fact, facism and socialism have much more in common than do a democratic form of government and socialism. 

I have more on this but don't have the time to post more right now.  What I'll do is show how the Germans "perfected" the ideas of socialism and how the growth of this political idea in Germany had a lot to do with the rise of Nazism before WWII. 

This is scary stuff people.  Very scary stuff.  Once you give up your liberty it costs blood to get it back. 

Just one more quick note.  Take a look at what is happening in the Western democracies right now.  The same mistake the French made is being made all over again.  God is being eliminated from both government and societies.  And socialism is gaining main stream acceptance.  See any parallels?  I do.

[joeb]

I'm really disappointed.  The socialists here don't seem to want to defend what they believe.  If it is so good, so desirable, why not defend it?

I have a few more quotes from people on the minuses of socialism.  I'll try to give links to each author as they are not always commonly known people.  They fall into a couple of professions: political thinkers and authors, and journalists who studied socialism up close in the countries socialism has been tried.

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom; socialism restricts a it.  
Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a
mere agent, a mere number.  Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but
one word: equality.  But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality
in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Alexis de Tocqueville

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

de Tocqueville wrote a couple of books on America:  Democracy in America, vols 1and 2, American Institutions and their Influence.  Both are available from the Gutenberg Project as free downloads.

OK.  Now for the second.

Socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road to not
freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorship, to civil war of the
fiercest kind.  Socialism achieved and maintained by democratic means seems
defintely to belong to the world of utopias.
 
W.H. Chamberlain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Chamberlin

Ok.  Now the third.

Marxism has led to Fascism and National Socialism, because, in all essentials,
it is Fascism and National Socialism.

F.A. Voight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Augustus_Voigt

Now for the last quote.

The generation to which which we belong is now learning from experience what
happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their
affairs.  Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in
practice renounce it, as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends
must give way to uniformity.  That is the nemisis of the planned society and the
authoritarian principle in human affairs.

Walter Lippman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann

Do you disagree with what these men who have either closely studied socialism or reported on it have said about it?  If so, why?

 

My next quote will come in a few days and to me it is the unanswerable argument against socialism, at least if you believe in liberty of thought and conscience.  In fact, if someone really believes in socialism I don't think they really understand the consequences it brings in its train, or they don't care that it must, by its very nature, limit freedom of thought and conscience. 

To me, liberty of thought and conscience are non-negotiable.  I don't see how they can be to any Christian.  If you think Christianity is compatible with totalitarianism I'd really like to see your arguments for that. 

[Bravus]

You continue to conflate socialism with totalitarian communism. I will - and have - happily defend the former, but definitely not the latter.

A quote war is not how one supports or challenges a system of ideas, though: that needs discussion and argument.

Read my first long post on socialism and why I think it is valuable, and challenge some of those points, if you can, in your own words.

[Geoarrge]

The problem is that it is wrong to dictate the moral obligations of one's neighbors.  Why is coveting what belongs to my neighbor suddenly all right if I convince myself I'm doing it on behalf of the poor and needy?  Using the accusation of selfishness for extortion is also selfish.  

[B/W Photodude]

Given that much of socialism and liberalism is focused on getting other peoples money for their own use, it reminds me of a saying, "A liberal is someone who knows how to spend your money better than you do." 

A big problem with socialist or liberal governments is they have dug such deep holes for their economical situations that they have gone past the tipping points to ever recovering. Look at Greece and you are looking at America's future. Some in American government today are looking at just how they can nationalize private retirement accounts. Many of you saving well into your 401s may find that Uncle Sam got there first like termites and emptied it out! 

How does a drummer forget his drums?! 

[Bravus]

joeb: you may be seeing some of the reasons why those who support (the social democratic versions of) socialism are reluctant to engage here: they tend to get vitriol and miunderstanding rather than engagement.

I've been as clear as I can, and am happy to leave it there. Those who already know cannot be informed.

[joeb]

You continue to conflate socialism with totalitarian communism. I will - and have - happily defend the former, but definitely not the latter.

A quote war is not how one supports or challenges a system of ideas, though: that needs discussion and argument.

Read my first long post on socialism and why I think it is valuable, and challenge some of those points, if you can, in your own words.

No.  I'm not conflating them.  They are very much alike in concept and practice.  The things I've said here about socialism come from someone who won the Nobel Prize for economics so I dare say he has a far deeper understanding of it than you or I.  As the following makes clear both socialism and communism are collectivist in nature, and by that nature they require the individual cede to the government the formation of their moral and ethical codes.

To understand what Hayek means by liberalism we must go back to the 1800's to understand him for liberalism once meant something far different than it does today, and he uses the word in its historical context.  To him liberalism means freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and economic freedom that will allow the indivdual to succeed or fail on his own.  Its meaning is far closer to how today's conservatives think than today's liberals.

 

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they
ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most
unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to
no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in
the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough.to fancy himself fit to
exercise it."  Adam Smith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

The common features of all collectivist systems may be described, in a phrase
ever dear to socialists of all schools, as the deliberate organization of the
labors of society for a definite social goal. That our present society lacks
such “conscious” direction toward a single aim, that its activities are guided
by the whims and fancies of irresponsible individuals, has always been one of
the main complaints of its socialist critics.

In many ways this puts the basic issue very clearly. And it directs us at once
to the point where the conflict arises between individual freedom and collectivism.
The various kinds of collectivism, communism, fascism, etc., differ among
themselves in the nature of the goal toward which they want to direct the
efforts of society. But they all differ from liberalism and individualism
in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for this
unitary end and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends
of the individuals are supreme. In short, they are totalitarian in the true
sense of this new word which we have adopted to describe the unexpected but
nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call collectivism.

The “social goal,” or “common purpose,” for which society is to be organized
is usually vaguely described as the “common good,” the “general welfare,”or the
“general interest.” It does not need much reflection to see that these terms have
no sufficiently definite meaning to determine a particular course of action.

The welfare and the happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale
of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man,depends
on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations.
It cannot be adequately expressed as a single end, but only hierarchy of ends, a
comprehensive scale of values in which every need of every person is given its
place. To direct all our activities according to a single plan presuppose's that
every one of our needs is given its rank in an order of values which must be
complete enough to make it possible to decide among all the different courses
which the planner has to choose. It presupposes, in short, the existance of a
complete ethical code in which all the different human values are allotted
their due place.

The conception of a complete ethical code is unfamiliar, and it requires some
effort of imagination to see what it involves. We are not in the habit of
thinking of moral codes as more or less complete. The fact that we are
constantly choosing between different values without a social code prescribing
how we ought to choose does not surprise us and does not suggest to us that
our moral code is incomplete.  In our society there is neither occasion nor
reason why people should develop common views about what should be done in such
situations. But where all the means to be used are the property of society and
are to be used in the name of society according to a unitary plan, a “social”
view about what to be done must guide all decisions. In such a world we should
soon find that our moral code is full of gaps.  "The Road to Serfdom" pages 100,101

It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to understand what Hayek is saying here, and it is, in my opinion, the fatal flaw of socialism. 

joeb: you may be seeing some of the reasons why those who support (the social democratic versions of) socialism are reluctant to engage here: they tend to get vitriol and miunderstanding rather than engagement.

I've been as clear as I can, and am happy to leave it there. Those who already know cannot be informed.

I think my last post answers this.

I absolutely hate this software.  It decides for me what content is to be merged and what isn't. 

[joeb]

'Socialism', in the broadest definition, is the idea that society exists and that we have some responsibility for others, not just for ourselves. That is often understood in relation to governments having an active role in sharing that responsibility. The Bible definitely strongly supports the first concept - responsibility for others, particularly the vulnerable. Many Christians say it should do that through charity rather than through government, and it's great when it's done, but when the political system is set up in such a way to actively undo the results of charity, I think there's a responsibility to also challenge that. Perhaps, too, as Naomi has indicated, many see charity itself as a problem - at least incoming if not outgoing.

In practice, as I said earlier, everyone contributing here thinks government should have some role. No one is calling for anarchy. What that role should be, and how it should be shared between the federal, state and local levels is what we are largely discussing here.

First, the Bible says we are, as individuals, accountable to our neighbors for what our own consciences tell us is right or wrong.  I see no place in your philosophy for this. 

Who decides what moral code society is to adopt?  You?  Me?  Once it is given over into the hands of government the individual has no say.  What if you then disagree with what the government says should be done?  What if what I say is the perfect moral code is adopted and you don't agree with it?  You will have to live by my code.  I don't know about you but I am very uncomfortable with that idea.  I don't want to be your conscience, and I certainly don't want you to be mine.

Also, what makes you think that government is actively undoing the work of charities? 

 

[Bravus]

It's ironic that Hayek's book is called 'The Road to Serfdom'. In the US at the moment, it is absolutely capitalist policies that are leading toward serfdom: a class of people who own little or nothing and must sell their labour to survive at a subsistence level. That's a bit of a side thought.

I don't know your politics well enough, joeb - are you an anarchist? or an extreme libertarian? Are you happy for all drugs to be legal, abortion to be legal and so on? Or do you see a role for government in making and enforcing some laws?

If so, government is already enforcing some moral code, whether we want it to or not. If government exists at all, it does that. The discussion, therefore, is not about whether or not governments should enforce moral codes, but about which moral codes they will enforce. That discussion is what democracy is *for*.

Everyone is likely to find some conflict: I am actually very happy that I paid a lot of tax this year, but many people will dislike that. People who want to use drugs will find conflict with that. That's the nature of any society in which we must live together with others. Any social organisation other than anarchy involves some conflict between individual and communal codes. Anarchy shifts that conflict to direct conflict between individuals.

Why do I think government is undoing the work of charities? When government uses trillions of dollars to bail out bankers who gambled with the savings and lives of working people and those bankers in turn use those taxpayer funds to give themselves million dollar bonuses, while minimum wage is kept at a level that means even hard earnest honest work pushes people into poverty at a rate greater than charity can ameliorate, don't you think government policy is actively working in the opposite direction to charity? This is what I mean by 'robber baron capitalism'.

We are actually less far apart than it may seem: I actually think the market does a great job of setting prices, wages and conditions, when it is given the freedom to do so. A proper laissez-faire capitalism that gets out of the way of the markets is quite attractive to me. But billion dollar subsidies to fossil fuel industries is not that. Subsidies to corn that lead to the massive use of high fructose corn syrup in food because corn is artificially a more commercial crop than healthier alternatives is not that.

This post is a bit disjointed because I've tried to reply to and address a few different issues. Prior to the auto-merge I'd have separated it out into a couple of different posts to enhance clarity...

Thanks for an enjoyable and interesting conversation, conducted in good spirit.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Bravus

[Bravus]

I guess, in summary, that I can see why what you mean by 'socialism' is unattractive to you. I think perhaps what you miss, and what prompted your original question, is that we mean different things by the term. The thing you think of as 'socialism' is unattractive to me too. I hope you can understand the quite different thing that I mean by 'socialism', and perhaps at least better understand why it is attractive to me, even if it remains unattractive to you.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Bravus

[whbae]

No matter how ideal the socialism is, it won't work in our world no matter where you live.  Only God's  government can do it.  Basically, the people are corrupt, even uncorrupt people get in to government they eventually become corrupt.

[phkrause]

No matter how ideal the socialism is, it won't work in our world no matter where you live.  Only God's  government can do it.  Basically, the people are corrupt, even uncorrupt people get in to government they eventually become corrupt.

Of course not Won, I totally agree. No matter what kind of government is in charge, period.

[Lauralea]

While I do appreciate our system and think it is superior to full fledged socialism, it is not without flaws. Unfortunately we now have a situation where large corporations have the same rights as human beings, and the biggest piece of socialism in history was when they handed those who wrecked the economy an astronomical sum of money just to make the mess go away instead of prosecuting them. So we are looking at a society in which we already have welfare for large businesses. In this kind of distorted society it may be that some social measures to support the common person may help to weaken the ill effects of welfare for corporations.

[joeb]

Bravus and Lauralea,

I'll try to answer both of your posts here as they are tied together with the
thoughts they express.

The banks are not the one to blame for the collapse of the housing market here
in the US.  The Democrats are.  Why?  We have something called FANNIE MAE that
is a government for providing housing financing and it sets a lot
of monetary policy with respect to that area.  The Democrats were in charge of
FANNIE MAE for they were in the majority of the house of Congress that
supervises it.  What they did was force the banks to relax their policies on
downpayments, income requirements, etc....  The result was that many people
recieved housing loans that in a sane world would have never been granted.  
They had never learned to be financially responsible.  They had no savings and
borrowed far beyond their ability to repay.  On top of that FANNIE MAE was
pushing ARMs.  Adjustable rate mortagages.  What was the sure result?  A huge
housing boom followed by a rise in interest rates with a corresponding rise in
mortgage payments.  Since many of the new home owners had borrowed well above
80% of the price of their home, and more than maxed out their debt to income
ratio as soon as the interest rates rose they were priced out of their homes.  
That caused the price of houses to drop.  As soon as the prices started to drop
many people were now upside down in their mortagages so they just walked away
from the situation.  This caused a further drop in housing prices.  It became a
vicious cycle and all the normal trading of mortagages now had a large
percentage of bad loans in them.  

This boom and bust was caused solely by government policy, specifically,
Democrat policy.  It was government intervention in business that caused the
entire thing.  

Now to address the idea that more government intervention will solve the income
disparity problem we have.  This problem is once again caused by government
intervention in business.  I'll give you one or two examples.  

In New York city many immigrants over the years have used a taxicab business to
rise above poverty.  The Irish did it in the day of the horse and buggy and in
the more recent times the Pakistani's and Indians (from India) have done the
same.  However, government has now made this traditional way of lifting
yourself out of poverty impossible to accomplish.  To start a taxi business in
New York city now requires an investment of a minimum of $1,000,000 per cab.  
That million goes to the government, for that is the price the socialists in
New York city government have set on the medallion they require to be placed on
n the hood of every taxi.  How have they done this?  In the name of safety.  

When my great-great grandfather emigrated here in the late 1890s he was a poor
man.  What he did was start a logging company.  He started small but kept
reinvesting in his business.  When the depression hit he had a million dollars
worth of logs on the landing and he went broke as the lumber market collapsed
to the point that the logs weren't worth what he had tied up in them.  He
started over again with a road building business and paid off all his debts.  
Today he couldn't start either of those businesses.  Government regulation
makes the entry level price so high the little guy is priced out of the
business.  Once again a road out of poverty is closed by government
intervention.

This is true in many of the traditional paths out of poverty.  So, do you
really think more government intervention is going to fix this?  
 
Since Obama was elected the income differential has exploded.  Why?  Because, as
a socialist, he believes government is the answer to everything.  He's created
more business regulation by far than any previous President and he's absolutely
stifling business growth and closing paths for people to lift themselves out of
poverty.  At the same time he blames the Republicans and capitalism for this
problem he is aggravating.  So does the media.  Why?  Because the main stream
media sees government as the answer to everything too.  

Now, as to serfdom.  Poverty is necessary, but not sufficient, for someone to
be considered a serf, or thrall.  To be considered a serf one must not only
have all ways out of poverty withheld from them but also be under the control
of another person.  In the old days that was the fuedal lord.  He set all
economic laws as far as his serfs were concerned.  He controlled all access to
money and through that kept his serfs under control.  Any money they did have he
taxed out of them.

So, why is socialism the road the serfdom?  Because it is government control of
production, transportation and distribution.  That puts the average man under
the complete control of the government.  He has no more freedom than the serf
in the Middle Ages.  When the government controls production it decides who
works where, what is produced, how much is produced, etc....  It then decides
where the goods are sold and at what price.  

This makes it possible for massive discrimination by government bureaucrats.  
Before the Iron Curtain fell there was massive discrimination in Eastern Europe.
 How was it accomplished?  The government controlled who worked where so it
could assign entire ethnicities to certain industries.  Then it would go after
those industries and ruin them with regulation.  Thus when accused of
discrimination they could say with a small amount of plausibility that they were
simply regulating an industry, not discriminating against a minority.  It's no
wonder that the Soviet Union had alcoholism rates in excess of 50%.  Nobody had
any hope of improving their lot. The only way was to join the Party.  And the
government controlled that too.

[joeb]

Bravus,

You took offense to earlier posts here that commented on socialism that expressed the idea that socialism is selfishness.  For some reason you think that is vitriol.  Why?  Did you take it as a personal attack? 

 

[Bravus]

Bravus,

You took offense to earlier posts here that commented on socialism that expressed the idea that socialism is selfishness.  For some reason you think that is vitriol.  Why?  Did you take it as a personal attack? 

Pretty sure I didn't take offense, or call it vitriol, or take it as a personal attack.

What I did do was simply note that socialism is not alone in having selfishness as a component. Capitalism also has - or at least, can have - selfishness as a component: the desire to personally accumulate capital.

Selfishness is a human characteristic - and so is altruism. Any system of government must take these into account.

We could argue about which system is more selfish but I'm not sure that would be productive because we understand the terms so differently.

[Bravus]

Your account of the financial crisis is accurate as far as it goes, but only goes halfway.

Another factor was that Greenspan and Bernanke kept interest rates artificially low for a long time to boost the markets, which led to rises in property prices because mortgages were cheaper.

But the real key was that the banks took all of those shaky, insecure, high-risk mortgages and bundled them up into securitised financial instruments and sold them to large institutional investors as though they were high quality, low risk investments. When the crisis hit, those investors lost as well as the homeowners being foreclosed on. That made the scale of the crisis much vaster than it would otherwise have been.

I think this is one of the problems: the sources you're reading focus on the 'sins' of the poor - getting mortgages they couldn't afford - and ignore the sins of the rich - fraudulently selling bad investments as good. A balanced perspective acknowledges both.

Last point: the Fannie Mae problems and bad mortgages were caused by a lack of prudential regulations of the banks, but your position is that regulation is a bad thing. Can't have it both ways. Bad mortgages are what you get when there are not limits on the level of risk - in terms of size of deposit and level of ability to service the debt - banks can assume. Regulation protects: which is why social democratic Australia weathered the crisis much better than the US.

[Bravus]

Edited July 14, 2015 by Bravus

[joeb]

Bravus,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you.  My health issues have
prevented me from doing so.  I've been feeling very poorly and my hands have
been shaking so badly that it's hard to eat, let alone type.  My symptoms have
gotten somewhat better for at least today so I'll post what I'm able to now,
but this is only a small part of what I have to say.

I have to laugh at your arrogance, Bravus.  Your cartoon was really funny as it
applies far more to you than it does to me.  Why?  You'll soon see.

You really help to make my arguments.  Government regulation created the Fed.  
So, government regulation was responsible for artificially low interest rates.  
Government regulation also allowed variable rate loans for long term debt.  So,
at a minimum we have the first three links in the chain of the banking crisis
created by government regulation.  Take those factors away and the banking
crisis could not have happened.  

Now, as to the personal responsibility of those who borrowed more than they
should have.  These people were making, for the vast majority of them, the
largest financial decision of their lives.  And, in any library in the US and
in hundreds of places on line, there is an abundance of material on debt to
income ratios, the pluses and minuses of every kind of loan available, etc....  
So, these people didn't even begin to educate themselves about the largest
financial decision they would ever make.  They self-imposed ignorance upon
themselves. They could have even talked to any one of a number of publicly
available resources, but they didn't.  Who is responsible for that?  They are.  
No one else.  They could have made smart decisions by educating themselves, but
they precluded that possibility by simply choosing to remain ignorant. 

Now, as to your assertion that government regulation only protects.  This is so
patently false that I'm amazed at how little thought went into your statement.  
I've already shown a couple of instances of how government regulation destroys
and harms people.  I've a few more for you.  

Since Obamacare has come into existance the vast majority of jobs created in
this country are part time.  This is unknown in the previous history of the US.
 At one point, the last time I really researched this, more than 90% of the
jobs created were part time.  And, when Obama did his last victory lap about
how low the government says the unemployment rate is the reason it dropped was
because 650,000 people had dropped out of the labor force.  Add to that the
issue of part time jobs being the vast majority of jobs available, and the
Obama administration changing the rules as to how the unemployment rate is
determined--he made part time work count as full employment in government
statistics--you can see how much harm his policies/regulations are doing.  They
are driving millions of people into poverty and dependency upon the government.

Thats only the tip of the iceberg in how Obama wants to hurt the little guy.  He
wants "cap and trade".  He's tried to get it through congress but failed, even
when the Democrats controlled both houses.  What is "cap and trade"?  Its a
huge scam.  All it does is create a market out of blue sky.  No real value
behind it.  No real property, so no real wealth.  What it will do is funnel
trillions of dollars out of the economy and raise utility prices by 200-300%,
by Obama's own admission.  Who does that hurt the most?  The little guy.  It's once
again government regulation that will crush and impoverish if Obama gets his way.

In the US the logging industry is required by law to clear cut all areas that
they log.  What's the harm?  It's manifold.  By no longer select cutting timber
there are no trees left to supply food and shelter to wildlife, reseed the
forest, and to provide shade for the snowpack.  The last is particularly
harmful for it causes flooding, water shortages, and increases soil erosion.  
How?  The snow melts off much quicker and the resulting water flows create
floods which cause erosion and great loss of property.  It also erodes the soil
away from the mountain slopes.  It also makes sure there is no old growth forest. 

Once again, great destruction caused by government regulation.     

If you would simply have thought about your position on this you would have
understood that it is impossible for it to be true.  For it to be true all
politicians would have to be as wise and foreseeing as God.  It would also
require all politicians to be scrupulously honest and never accept "campaign
donations" from those who ask them to use their positions of power to provide a
business advantage for themselves over their competition.  Since we know that
none of the above is true of all politicians your assertion is provably false on its face.

You love to insult conservatives by saying they don't ever think out their
positions and are, in fact, incapable of doing so.  However, I've shown here
who is the one who has not thought out his position.

I have much more to say about socialism and I will prove that you haven't even
thought that out position. 

[Bravus]

You seem to have projected something onto me that I never said, and then called me arrogant and gone off into a rant based on that.

Of course I understand that regulation is not 100% good. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

It's also not 100% bad: and it's foolish to think otherwise.

It needs to be assessed on its merits on a case-by-case basis. That is the thoughtful approach, and it's the approach I take.

(PS Sorry to hear about your health challenges, and hope you're feeling much better very soon.)

[joeb]

I have a quote for you socialists who believe you're somehow different than communists. 

 

The confusion thus introduced has had the effect of seriously complicating the
study of Socialism from the historical point of view. Much that one finds bearing —‘
the name of Socialism in the literature of the middle of the nineteenth century,
for example, is not at all related to Socialism as that term is understood to-day.
Thus the Socialists of the present day, who do not advocate Communism, regard
as a classic presentation of their views the famous pamphlet by Karl Marx and
Friederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. They have circulated it by millions
of copies in practically all the languages of the civilized world. Yet throughout it
speaks of "Socialists" with ill-concealed disdain, and always in favor of Commu-
nism and the Communist Party. The reason for this is clearly explained by Engels
himself in the preface written by him for the English edition, but that has not pre-
vented many an unscrupulous opponent of Socialism from quoting the Communist
Manifesto of Marx and Engels against the Socialists of the Marx-Engels
school.[7] In like manner, the utterances and ideas of many of those who formerly
called themselves Socialists have been quoted against the Socialists of to-day,
notwithstanding that it was precisely on account of their desire to repudiate all
connection with, and responsibility for, such ideas that the founders of the mod-
ern Socialist movement took the name "Communists."

Nothing could be clearer than the language in which Engels explains why the name
Communist was chosen, and the name Socialist discarded. He says: "Yet, when it
(the Manifesto) was written, we could not have called it a Socialist Manifesto.
By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand, the adherents of the
various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of
these already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on
the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks, who, by all manner of
tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all
sorts of social grievances; in both cases men outside of the working-class
movement, and looking rather to the educated classes for support. Whatever
portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere
political revolution and had proclaimed the necessity of a total social change,
that portion, then, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely
instinctive sort of Communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was
powerful enough among the working class to produce the Utopian Communism, in
France, of Cabet, and in Germany, of Weitling. Thus Socialism was, in 1847, a
middle-class movement; Communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the
Continent at least, 'respectable'; Communism was the very opposite. And as our
notion, from the very beginning, was that the emancipation of the working class
must be the act of the working class itself,' there could be no doubt as to
which of the names we must take. Moreover, we have ever since been far from

The quote comes from a book titled "Socialism:  A Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principle" written by John Spargo. 

Here's a link to who he was.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spargo

Another obscure Socialist, Vladimir I'lich Lenin, wrote an article to Americans and published it as "A Letter to American Workingmen from the Socialist Soviet State". 

Since Marx, Engels, and Lenin all agree that what we think of today as communism is socialism, I think the point is pretty well settled as all three were leaders of the social movement during their lifetimes.

Edited July 29, 2015 by joeb

[joeb]

Now I have a quote from Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom".  It's from pages 138 and 139.  In it you will see why socialism must be totalitarianism. 

While people will submit to suffering which may hit anyone, they will not so
easily submit to suffering which is the result of the decision of authority It may
be bad to be just a cog in an impersonal machine; but it is infinitely worse if we
can no longer leave it, if we are tied to our place and to the superiors who have
been chosen for us. Dissatisfaction of everybody with his lot will inevitably grow
with the consciousness that it is the result of deliberate human decision.

Once government has embarked upon planning for the sake of justice, it can—
not refuse responsibility for anybody’s fate or position. In a planned society we
shall all know that we are better or worse off than others, not because of cir-
cumstances which nobody controls, and which it is impossible to foresee with
certainty, but because some authority wills it. And all our efforts directed to-
ward improving our position will have to aim, not at foreseeing and preparing
as well as we can for the circumstances over which we have no control, but at
influencing in our favor the authority which has all the power. The nightmare
of English nineteenth-century political thinkers, the state in which no avenue
to wealth and honor would exist save through the government,(4) would be
realized in a completeness which they never imagined though familiar
enough in some countries which have since passed to totalitarianism.

As soon as the state takes upon itself the task of planning the whole economic
life, the problem of the due station of the different individuals and groups
must indeed inevitably become the central political problem. As the coercive
power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth
having will be a share in the exercise of this directing power. There will be
no economic or social questions that would not be political questions in the
sense that their solution will depend exclusively on who wields the coercive
power, on whose are the views that will prevail on all occasions.

I believe it was Lenin himself who introduced to Russia the famous phrase
“who, whom?”~—~during the early years of Soviet rule the byword in which the
people summed up the universal problem of a socialist society. Who plans
whom, who directs and dominates whom, who assigns to other people their sta—
tion in life, and who is to have his due allotted by others? These become neces—
sarily the central issues to be decided solely by the supreme power. ‘

More recently an American student of politics has enlarged upon Lenin’s
phrase and asserted that the problem of all government is “who gets what“, _
when, and how.” In a way this is not untrue. That all government affects the
relative position of different people and that there is under any
system-scarcely an ’aspect of our lives which may not be affected by government
action is certainly true. In so far as government does anything at all, its
action will always have some effect on “who gets what, when, and how.”

There are, however, two fundamental distinctions to be made. First, partic-
ular measures may be taken without the possibility of knowing how they will
affect particular individuals and therefore without aiming at such particular
effects. This point we have already discussed. Second, it is the extent of the
activities of the government which decides whether everything that any person
gets any time depends on the government, or whether its influence is confined
to whether some people will get some things in some way at some time. Here
lies the whole difference between a free and a totalitarian system.

4The actual words are those of the young Disraeli. [The actual quotation reads,
“no public avenues to wealth and honor would subsist save through the
Government.” It is taken from Tory politician and novelist Benjamin Disraeli’s
(1804—1881) essay, “Vindication of the English Constitution in a Letter to a
Noble and Learned Lord” (1835), reprinted in Benjamin Disraeli, Disraeli 7
0n Whigs and l/szggz'sm, ed. William Hutcheon (New York: Macmillan, 1914), p.
216, a work that established “the young Disraeli” as a political writer and
thinker. He used the essay to attack Utilitarians and others who would “form
political institutions on abstract principles of theoretic science, instead of
permitting them to spring from the natural course of events, and to be naturally
created by the necessities of nations” (p. 119). His criticisms of those who
would “abrogate the clumsy and chance—born institutions of England, and
substitute in their place their own modish inventions, formed on the
irrefragable basis of Reason and Utility” (p. 134) bring to mind'Hayck’S ‘
later criticisms of “rationalist constructivism.” —-Ed.] ' , l v .

In the last paragraph, other than the footnote, where Hayek refers to something already discussed he is talking about the difference between the "Rule of Law" and arbitrary government.  I will go back to this difference soon as it is very important.

As anyone with a brain can see the political discourse currently going on in this country, and from political correctness as a whole, we are already reaching the point where all social and economic matters are political questions.  Thus we are now teetering on the brink of totalitarianism, right now. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by joeb