As a libertarian Conservative, if I were asked by someone to summarise in a sentence what socialism is and why I am opposed to it, I would confidently say, “socialism is the tyranny of conformity”. During the course of my education and interest in both history and politics (particularly the 1930s and the Second World War), I discovered that all forms of socialism share the same cancerous genetic code. All strains of left-wing ideology share (to various degrees) the same basic animalistic desire to impose a near universal conformity (with the notable exception of the socialist hierarchies themselves) upon humanity and have contempt for individuality and independent thinking. Why is this? Once someone begins to think for themselves instead of accepting the ‘conventional wisdom’ of the socialist elites without question, these said elites feel threatened by this sign of independence because it provides an alternative source of authority that challenges these ruling elites' legitimacy to hold and exercise power. To maintain their power to control the people, the socialist elites feel compelled by their nature to suppress and/or destroy any institution, person and symbol that rejects the status quo.
Individuality and independence of any kind are perquisites of liberty, which are the polar opposites of the imposed conformity promoted and pursued by socialists, from ‘social democrats’ to ‘democratic socialists’ to communists to fascists (do not be fooled by lies that fascism is the right-wing ideological counterpart of communism – particularly Stalinism, as Stalinism is really just another form of fascism). It is from this tyranny of conformity that all other forms of tyranny stem. Socialism is a hypocritical, inconsistent mongrel philosophy of lies and shameful euphemisms; with which words such as ‘progressive’ and ‘final solution’ take on coded double meanings to dupe and misinform humanity. In other words, to be socialist is to be anti-social!
3 comments:
What nonsense! Socialism is as representative of individuality and freedom as Pol Pot is of religious toleration.
"Most of these taxes are so poorly thought out as to be useless, but they are good for taxing the productive, energetic members of society."
Who acctually produces everything in society? No, not bosses but workers. In fact, if you look back at history, things have acctually been more productive when workers do things without bosses, when they take control of their factories and workplaces, when workers have set up democratic councils and ran things among themselves.
In the Russian Revolution for example, workers set up Soviets. Contrary to popular belief, the soviets during the actual revolution and not in the Stalinist counter-revolutionary dictatorship were not extensions of the Bolshevik government but were democratic workers councils.
Similar examples can be seen in Chile 1972, France 1968 and Iran 1979, where workers set up workers' councils called Shoras. The reason all these near-revolutions eventually failed was because 1. the trade union bureaucracy and the communist parties of that time often had different interests to the workers, advocating reformism and destroying any hope of revolution and 2. The workers' organizations were simply not militant enough to challenge state power, and eventually caved in to reformism. The most militant workers were silenced and socialism was co-opted by state capitalism.
Have you heard of socialism from below? Socialism can not be imposed from above by a bureaucracy, reformism or through bourgeois parliamentary "democracy". It can only be happen when workers themselves take control of the means of production.
This means China, Cuba, the USSR (post-1917 revolution, the revolution itself is a different matter) and Vietnam are not Socialist societies in any sense of the word. They were state capitalist bureaucracies. They were still driven by the idea of competition and accumulation of capital for accumulation's sake.
However, no one in the right mind spontaneously goes out onto the street saying "VIVA LA REVOLUCION!". No. It doesn't work that way. Workers go on strike and take control when their material conditions become so unbearable that it is necessary to fight for reforms. However, it is through these strikes and occupations that workers realise their collective ability as a class to fight against not only their bosses, but also the state and the entire system.
There has not been a SINGLE true socialist society in history that has lasted for more than a few months, but we can learn lessons from history.
Also read up on the Marxist theory of Alienation. and commodity fetishism for an explanation of why bourgeois "liberty" is bullshit.
According to the Marxist conception, one's social condition determines one's way of thought. His membership of a social class decides what views a writer will express. He is not able to grow out of his class or to free his thoughts from the prescriptions of his class interests. Thus the possibility of a general science which is valid for
all men, whatever their class, is contested. lt was only another step
for Dietzgen to proceed to the construction of a special proletarian
logic. But truth lies with the proletarian science only: 'the ideas of
proletarian logic are not party ideas, but the consequences of logic pure and simple. Thus Marxism protects itself against all unwelcome criticism. The enemy is not refuted: enough to unmask him as a bourgeois. Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who
think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the
bourgeoisie, even though it is Socialism that forces one to work without freedom to leave (quit the job), whereas free-market capitalism provides for the ability to negotiate contract or leave from one.
Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided,slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person. Few have been able to withstand such tactics. Few indeed have been courageous enough to oppose Socialism with that remorseless criticism which is the duty of the scientific thinker to apply to every subject of inquiry.
Only thus is to be explained - the fact that supporters and opponents
of Socialism have unquestioningly obeyed the prohibition which Marxism has laid on any closer discussion of the economic and social conditions of the sodaiist community. Marxism declares on the one band that the socialization of the means of production is the end towards which economic evolution leads with the inevitability of a natural law; on the other hand it represents such socialization as the aim of it's political effort. In this way he expounded the first principle
of socialist organization. The purpose of the prohibition to study the
working of a socialist community, which was justified by a series of threadbare arguments, was really intended to prevent the weaknesses of Marxist doctrines from coming clearly to light in discussions regarding the creation of a practicable socialist society. A clear exposition of the nature of socialist society might have damped the enthusiasm of the masses, who sought in Socialism salvation from all earthly ills. The successful suppression of these dangerous inquiries, which had
brought about the downfall of all earlier socialistic theories, was one
of Marx's most skilful tactical moves. Only because people were·not allowed to talk or to think about the nature of the socialist community,was Socialism able to become the dominant political movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
State capitalism, still antithetical to free-markets (which is optimal) is simply the logic coming to light that socialism can never fully be realized unless it has tons of capitalism to prop it up. State capitalism thusly, quickly became the next Socialist agenda -Progressivism, which was intended to inevitably and slowly grow back into the same old conformity that is Socialism and it has worked on the less scientific minds to it's "Democratic Socialism", which simply means,
"Don't listen to the 1%(the bourgeisie)! Yes, it is moral to vote for legal plunder(an oxymoron)"
Post a Comment