Socialism Works - Each and Every Time It Is Tried

 For certain definitions of "works".

And, yes.  I understand that there are esoteric differences between communism and socialism that matter in the ivory towers of the overly credentialled class.  The pragmatic results are the same.

Socialism and Communism - Kissing, Turbulent Cousins

One of my many pet peeves is the incessant mischaracterization of the Nazis as being "far right" on some sort of linear political spectrum.  There are no common elements between the economic/social controls that the Nazis imposed and the typical, liberal, capitalist, small-d democratic form of government practiced by most western nations.  The communist assertion that the Nazis were "far right" is patently false.

[More about political spectrums at the bottom.]

My understanding of the history of leftist ideology is that the communists originally call themselves "left wing socialists" while they label fascists and similar ne'er-do-wells as "right wing socialists".  Free markets don't even register on the communist political spectrum.  Those of us that support free minds and free markets exist outside of their reality.

Fascist governments have historically engaged in social and economic controls that are very similar to those imposed by communists.  The problem is that no socialist group wants competition.  As a result, the first thing the socialists do after getting into power is shoot the communists.  And vice versa.  They are competing to position their faction as the best expression of collectivist ideology.

I came across a brief essay by Gustavo Jalife at The Conservative Woman.  His thoughts on the topic are quite similar to mine.

The characterisation of the ‘far right’ as nationalist, racist and authoritarian ideologies that seek to eliminate democratic systems, even through violence, is repeated daily by mainstream media pundits who deliberately try to smear whoever defends democracy by resisting the intrusion of the state into every crevice of private life. However, the formula perfectly applies to forces dwelling on the opposite side of the political arc. The Soviet Communist Party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party NSDAP (the Nazi Party), the National Fascist Party of Italy and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, among other totalitarian ensembles, fit the description precisely. That the flagrant subversion of a primary concept has taken root even among presumably learned people confirms the resounding success of one of the greatest propaganda operations ever undertaken.

Gustavo referenced a longer essay by Allen Gindler titled "How and Why Fascism and Nazism Became the ‘Right.’” originally published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.  I'm still chewing through the essay, but there were some early nuggets worth quoting.

Instead, Marxism is a particular and extreme current of socialism called communism. In other words, Marxism is undoubtedly leftist, but the Left is not entirely Marxist. Marxism did not invent socialist thought, which originated centuries earlier and is known by the collective name “utopian socialism.” Marxism’s founders initiated the communist camp and clearly distinguished themselves from contemporary socialists, whom they contemptuously called “so-called socialists.”

and

According to Engels, the last group—democratic socialists—shared the majority of communists’ political objectives but stopped short of accepting all the provisions of Marxist doctrine. They were satisfied with achieving goals within the framework of social democracy. Communists engaged in partnerships with democratic socialists and tried to convince them to embrace communist thought in its entirety.

and

The lesson to be learned and remembered is that left-wing intellectual circles were vibrant yet at the same time hostile environments. Despite the fact that the Left has only one common enemy—capitalism—intractable contradictions in the tactics and strategies of its overthrow made them implacable adversaries.  Even though the bourgeoisie was the Left’s openly proclaimed enemy, they were treated less harshly than opponents from their leftist circles, who were treated like vile traitors. History showed that as soon as one of the left-wing parties gained real power, it immediately persecuted its fellow socialists from other factions.

I invite you to read the essay for yourself.  Thus far it is a clarifying piece that documents the history of leftist factionalism.  From my perspective, there are no significant differences between socialism (even so-called "democratic socialism") and communism.  The only differences are a matter of style...and how they put the bullet in your head for having the temerity to utter the phrase they hold in highest contempt; "I disagree".

---

Regarding political spectrums.  The entire framing of politics as a linear spectrum also has roots in early French republics and other parliamentary systems.  Representatives in those governments had partisan seating such that those on the perceived "left" were seated to the left.

A more accurate depiction of political options is offered in the image below.  Whenever I engage with one of these quiz-based political maps, I generally wind up somewhere in the green circle.  Communists generally end up somewhere toward the left edge of the black circle and fascists end up in the blue area of the black circle.  My point is that communists, socialists, and fascists frequently have far more in common than might be imagined if one uses the flawed, linear political spectrum that places communism at one extreme and fascism at the other.

Horseshoe theory is real.

Most western societies, including the United States, including the much-reviled MAGA movement, generally fall into a range that is a bit above and a bit to the left of my green circle.  You can take one such quiz here. 

Socialists Blink - Again

Venezuela has been mired in a death spiral created by socialist policies for decades.  This is not a rhetorical death spiral.  Socialist policies have taken what was one of the great economic success stories in the world and a beacon for Central and South American nations and turned it into a poverty-ravaged nation.  Malnutrition and poor healthcare have resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Venezuelans.

This result has always been perfectly predictable.

And now the government of Venezuela is taking a step back.  They are turning towards privatization of their economy to help their nation recover from Chavista politics. Now a change made today can always be unmade in the future.  The future for Venezuela could certainly be bright if they aggressively stepped back towards free markets.

This is just the latest example of how the solution to economic issues is free-market capitalism.  Sweden started the move away from socialist madness in the late 1980s and has been bounding forward ever since.  Lady Thatcher crucially set the UK free from such nonsense back then as well.  France recently tried to tax the super-rich only to watch those folks take their money and their economic activity elsewhere.  

Vietnam is a booming free-market economy even though the communists retain control of the government.  India gradually stepped away from an overly regulated system and towards free-markets.  China has made a similar shift away from a centralized economy over the last few decades.  The result of this global shift towards capitalism has been a reduction in the incidence of extreme poverty.

Nothing has done more to lift people out of poverty than free markets.

Welcome to the club, Venezuealans.  We hope you are here to stay.

Precisely How Elite Are They?

A number of thoughts come to mind in the wake of the British referendum on leaving the European Union as well as events in this year's US Presidential elections.

Central to those conflicts, large and small, is the perceived sense of self-worth of the self-described elites; the folks whose opinion should matter just a little more than the hoi polloi.  The suggestion is that the world would be better off if we let those elites offer a bit firmer guidance in the affairs of state.

This perspective is shockingly highlighted by the usually progressive....more accurately socialist leaning....Rolling Stone magazine.  Matt Taibbi's article suggests that the reaction to Brexit justifies why Brexit became an issue in the first place.

The overall message in every case is the same: Let us handle things.

But whatever, let's assume that the Brexit voters, like Trump voters, are wrong, ignorant, dangerous and unjustified.

Even stipulating to that, the reaction to both Brexit and Trump reveals a problem potentially more serious than either Brexit or the Trump campaign. It's become perilously fashionable all over the Western world to reach for non-democratic solutions whenever society drifts in a direction people don't like. Here in America the problem is snowballing on both the right and the left.

Even the quote from Mr. Taibbi illustrates the sort of non-self-aware perspective that pervades the leftist perspective.  It is most certainly undeniable that Mr. Trump has used indelicate language on the subject of race on mulitple occasions; specifically in commenting on American immigration policies..  It is equally undeniable that blatantly racist individuals and groups have come out of the proverbial woodwork in support of Mr. Trump.  Similarly, there were racists supporting the Brexit initiative.

Mr. Taibbi fails, as do many critics of Mr. Trump, when he conflates the small but vocal racist component with the respective larger movements.

Permit me to pause here to note that I didn't have any position on Brexit...that is for British citizens to decide....and I am 99+% certain to vote for Gary Johnson in the U.S. Presidential election this fall.  Back to the issue at hand.....

What Mr. Taibbi and those critics fail to understand is that the U.S. government has the authority and the responsibility to determine who gets to immigrate into our country.  There is nothing racist with expecting that immigrants obey our immigration laws.  There is nothing racist with the expectation that potential new citizens abandon the governmental traditions of their home nations in favor of the governmental traditions expressed by the Constitution of the United States.

I possess a passion for the US Constitution.  It describes a limited scope of authority for the federal government and presents an expansive view of individual liberty.  American liberals have generally been successful on those issues that can be properly framed as pursuing the interest of individual liberty.  American conservatives have similarly been successful on issues that are framed by the Constitution's limits on the size and scope of government.

The Constitution is the rhetorical DNA of the American political system.  America succeeds when the plain language of the Constitution succeeds.  We falter when that same language is subverted.

A similar perspective applies in the case of Brexit where an unelected and largely unconstrained government in Brussels perceives itself to be superior to the founding documents of the British commonwealth.  The British people have the reasonable expectation that they will be governed in a manner consistent with which they have previously given their consent.

Michael Totten, an author I hold in high esteem, offered his perspective on Brexit.

If I lived in the United Kingdom, I would have voted to Remain in the EU, but it’s not hard to see why the majority voted to Leave. I wouldn’t want the United States to join the EU for the same reasons the Brexiters want out of it.

The EU is a brilliant idea. Unite splendidly diverse yet like-minded nations into a powerful bloc that’s greater than the sum of its parts. Provide minimum standards and guidelines for countries that aren’t as advanced (such as Greece and Romania). Pull down trade barriers and do business in a common market. Open up job opportunities and leg-stretching room for all. (I wouldn’t want to be confined to a place as cramped as Belgium for the rest of my life, but I’m one of those cosmopolitan "elites" everyone likes to complain about nowadays.)

The actually existing EU, though, isn’t so brilliant. It includes all the good stuff, yet it’s crushed by a staggering amount of centralized regulatory bureaucracy and a disregard for the wishes of its individual member states. It’s hardly a gulag empire, but it’s autocratic enough that Europe’s democracy deficit has its own Wikipedia page.

Mr. Totten is what I consider to be liberal of the old-school variety; open-minded and tolerant.  While I suspect that we would disagree on some of the particulars that describe an appropriate level of government, we most definitely agree on the basic instrument of the role of the people in establishing and maintaining that government.

It is regrettable to note that the "elites" have little interest in analyzing where they went wrong.  Instead they work for another referendum, another election, another opportunity to get an answer of which they approve.  If only we can give them enough time, they will develop a system of mathematics that will let two plus two equal five.

In their minds, the only election that matters is the one they win.

I do have to offer some appreciation for former President Bill Clinton in his response to the 1994 elections that saw both houses of the US Congress to the Republicans.  Rather than dig in his heels, he eventually modified his agenda to work with the Congress.  The Republicans did the same.  It wasn't perfect, as illustrated by the government shut-down.  But Mr. Clinton did demonstrate an appreciation for the fact that ALL elections matter; not just the one that he won.

In contrast, American leftists only seem to care about Mr. Obama's election.  Mr. Obama himself has demonstrated little interest in working with Congress to achieve whatever might be possible within two very different philosophical agendas.  Hence the his lack of success when compared with Mr. Clinton.

While I would certainly disagree with the average Briton about what constitutes an appropriate level of government, I wholeheartedly agree that the perspective of the average voter ought to influence the actions of government.  When a government undermines the legitimate objectives of all people to freely pursue a satisfying life, those same people have the right to change their government, or institute a new one, in a manner that to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When the elites in government lose the tangible supports of the average citizen, it is incumbent upon those elites to undertake serious self-evaluation and reflection on their actions and whether or not they have been good stewards of the public interest.  Their first step should not be to change the rules of the game so as to ensure a different (electoral) result.  Their purpose should be to respond in a manner that is above the brown-shirts attacking people peaceably attending political rallies in California.  It shouldn't be to join them.

*modestly edited 6/29/2016

Who Owns You?

On the international front, socialism is on the rise in France.  Socialists recently won control of most of the government and immediate set to work solving their deficit problems by raising taxes on the rich.  Those taxes were one factor for Johnny Depp's decision to return to the U.S.  There have been other reports of France's elite moving to the U.K., Belgium, and other countries to avoid those confiscatory tax rates. 

Recently, France's Prime Minister had a hissy fit over several high profile actors, and others that took similar precautions to preserve their earnings.

I find the bureaucratic outrage to be more than a little amusing.  It is as if these socialists believe that those people are the property of the state rather than being individuals who have the freedom to choose the conditions in which they live.  Why should they be surprised when those individuals exercise that freedom in the face of an overly bureaucratic government that is imposing an intolerable level of taxation?

The exodus is predictable, as is the socialist response.  Sadly.

Victims Of Communism Day

Lacking a pre-programmed entry for today, I will simply note that Loyalty Day (as practiced in the U.S.) is also a great candidate for Victims of Communism Day.  The Volohk Conspiracy also has more.

From Surprising Corners

I was listening to someone a couple weeks ago.  This person is a hard core anti-socialist, pro-freedom individual.  They mildly chastised me once for suggesting that corporations should not be considered the legal equivalent of a person.

They were observing that some of the Occupy protesters were making a few fair points about their respective situations.  His concern was that the Occupy movement would be subverted by the minority that wants to impose socialism on the country.

The point?  This is someone that I would not expect to be giving any credence to any of the OWS arguments.

I have some further thoughts that I am working on and hope to have posted soon.  Given that I am writing this post a couple weeks in advance, you might have seen them by now!

Classic Movie As Propaganda?

A curiosity in the history of film; the CIA funded the animated movie adaptation of George Orwell's "Animal Farm".  I am certain that some folks will find this situation to be dripping with irony under the believe that the CIA is a fountain of propaganda that should never be trusted.

Trusting the government is always risky business.  The CIA certainly has a track record that should urge caution.

However, CIA funding should not be enough in an of itself to undermine Mr. Orwell's central theme; that tyranny, oppression, communism and socialism are synonymous and denigrate the human condition.  They are a creeping, poisonous vine revealed at the moment whenever a "committee" is formed to "run things".

The Trouble With Socialists

Yup.

Actually I’d say it’s fairly typical. The more they talk about equality, the more they implement aristocracy.

Now We Know...

Just in case there is any doubt left regarding the intent of the now defunct ACORN's voter registration initiative, now we know.

The intent was to aid and abet voter fraud to the greatest degree possible.

The documents include handwritten notes from FBI investigators interviewing canvassers working with Project Vote, an ACORN affiliate. Among the highlights from the FBI handwritten notes:

• [ACORN] “Told employees not to talk to the FBI. ‘FBI trying to intimidate you.’”
• Fraudulent cards:
  • To cause confusion on election day to keep polls open longer
  • To allow people who can’t vote to vote.
  • To allow to vote multiple times.
• Project Vote will pay them whether cards fake or not – whatever they had to do to get the cards was attitude.
• Constantly threatened
• Staff restricted on what to say to FBI
• “Poverty pimpin” (sic) ACORN
• ACORN HQ is wkg for the Democratic Party.
• PV [Project Vote] pays ACORN $6.00 per card…Said “You treat the cards like (cash) $”
• Some [names] went right from the phone book and made up the rest.
• Canvassers: homeless, volatile, drug users, drunks…
• Anyone who was against PV (Project Vote) or ACORN’s goals “right wing”
• She thought if she used a completely fake name it would be less like ID Theft…”Yeah, it’s against the law, I know.”

The sad part is that the Obama administration closed the investigation rather the pursuing these criminals with the urgency that such crimes require.

A cover up for ACORN.  A cover up for the Black Panthers.




Barack Obama - potentially the left's electoral equivalent of Richard Nixon?

Rationing And Death Panels

David Leonhardt has an article in the NYTimes about the coming changes in health care.  He focuses on the purported savings to be realized by both the Medicare innovation center and a Medicare oversight board.  The former now has the legal teeth to determine which treatments are available for which patients/conditions.  The latter is supposed to have the authority to tell doctors how much they can charge for a given procedure.

Mr. Leonhardt advocates rationing health care and using the force of government to prevent patients from obtaining treatment.

From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can't sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare’s long-term budget deficit will grow.

So figuring out how we can say no may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out reform. "Being able to say no," Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford says, "is the heart of the issue."

Rationing.....although Mr. Leonhardt only uses that word once and then only to suggest that it is an inaccurate description.

Rationing.  A common and dominant feature where ever national health care is practiced.

For those that scoffed at the idea of "death panels", now you know their true name; Medicare innovation center.

But I suspect that these arguments won't be persuasive. They have the faint ring of an insurer’s rationale for denying a claim.

No, Mr. Leonhardt.  The insurer's rationale for denying a claim has the faint ring of one's government declaring by edict that you are not eligible to receive life saving treatment.  At least when an insurer says "no", patients can appeal, speak to regulatory agencies, or even hold a community fund raiser.  What do patients do when the government declares it illegal for them to receive treatment?

The most significant step may be when an insurer refuses to cover a procedure.  But it is not necessarily the last one.  People in a free country always have options.

At least, we used to.

Why are we mad?

Social Security is $8 trillion short.

Medicare is $32 trillion short.

Both programs began under the gossamer thin pretext of being properly funded.  And yet today they are not.

They could have been properly funded if Congress had been willing to privatize those programs several decades ago.  But it is too late to do anything about it today.

We have less than 3 workers for every current retiree.  Soon we will be down to 2 workers per retiree.

And on top of that we have this monstrosity of a health care "reform" that claims to only add $200 billion to the annual deficit.  A claim that only makes sense if you accept the fraudulent accounting gimmicks used by Congress to get an "acceptable" score from the Congressional Budget Office.

Pouring sludge into an engine is the not the proper response to a flat tire.  Unfortunately, few currently in power have demonstrated any interest in fixing that flat tire. 

They are invested too heavily into sludge.

Because I Don't Want How I Vote To Determine The Health Care I Receive

I have been working on a longer post on the subject of "socialism".  There has been a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. is heading towards becoming a "socialist" nation.  Hopefully I will get that finished and posted soon.  [yeah, right - ed.]

In the meantime, I would like to point out one identifying behavior of socialist nations.  Specifically, that how you vote and the initiatives you support tend to determine how well you do in terms of receiving government largesse.

Gone is the principle that one should earn what they get.  Gone is the principle that we are all equal before the law and before our government.

Instead, government money and programs become skewed so that they favor the people that vote for the politicians that create and continue such initiatives.  Protesting such largesse makes you a target for retribution both politically and literally.

What does that have to do with the health care debate?

It Is To Laugh....Except It Isn't Really Funny

"Oh Lord!  Please save our dumb butts from the logical result of "electing" a socialist as El Presidente!"