QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist? Please don't provide tautological answers saying "they belong to the Socialist Party”. If you can't refrain, then explain what makes a party a "socialist" party.’
I posted this answer:
I think this question needs rephrasing. Nothing “makes” someone a socialist. People have free will, and choose their political principles according to their values. A more proper framing of the question would be something like “What draws someone to socialism?” or “Why do people choose socialism?” To answer that, we must first define socialism in its essentials.
Socialism is an outgrowth of collectivism. Collectivism is the doctrine that the good of the group is the standard of morality. Since socialism is a political manifestation of collectivism, socialism embodies the principle that the good of society takes precedence over the individual pursuing his own good. “Society,” however, is an abstraction. Society is not a conscious entity separate from the individuals that comprise it. It is not an entity capable of acting in its own interests, or even choosing its own interests. Only individuals are capable of acting and choosing. Individuals can collaborate voluntarily to cooperatively advance interests they have in common. But only individuals can act and choose. Society is comprised of individuals. Yet socialism claims that society has interests that supersede the interests of the individuals that comprise it. Since society cannot act on its own--that is, independent of individual thought and initiative--who, then, assumes the authority to represent society’s interests? A ruling political elite, acting through the mechanism of the state.
Since socialism holds that the interests of society morally supercede the interests of the individual, the socialist government, to fulfill its function as representative of society, must hold full power over all individuals’ lives—their property, their goals, the proceeds of their productive work, what they may say or write, and so on—which it can dispose of for whatever it deems to be “in the public interest” or to further “the good of society.” Therefore, socialism denies individual rights, including rights to property and free trade. Of necessity, the individual has no rights to his life, political liberty, earned property, or pursuit of personal happiness: He exists to serve society as determined by the state.
Socialism has many forms. It can be total, as with national socialism (fascist) or communism. It can be partial, as with the welfare state. But whatever its manifestation, the basics of socialism remain the same. Every socialist initiative begins with armed aggression by the state against private individuals, based on the premise that the individual’s life is not his own to live, but belongs to society.
What type of person does such a system appeal to? Since socialism forcibly redistributes wealth from those who earned it to those who don’t, it appeals to greed. Since socialism requires totalitarian powers for government officials, it appeals to powerlust. Since socialism systematically punishes and ultimately destroys productive individuals, it appeals to envy and hatred of achievement. Add to that a craving for unearned prestige; i.e., the desire to be seen as “caring about the welfare of others,” without actually having do do anything for the welfare of others--socialism is a cover to force others to pay for craver’s pseudo-compassion, with the government as his hired gun. So socialism has appeal to the phony. Greed, powerlust, envy, hatred, and phoniness, or some combination thereof, are what draws people to socialism. Why these vices and nothing better? Because virtuous motivations belong to the self-responsible people who simply want to live in peaceful coexistence with others, neither being controlled by others nor controlling others, and who respect the same rights of others to live by their own judgement. Self-responsible, respectful people who fully understand what socialism actually is simply are not attracted to socialism.**
There is, however, a more innocent (or less guilty) group of socialism supporters. As I observed at the outset, socialism is rooted in collectivism. Going deeper, collectivism is rooted in the morality of altruism. Altruism holds that self-sacrificial service to others is the standard of moral action. Because they accept the conventional altruist morality, they see socialism as altruistic because it subordinates individuals to live for others (the collective) rather than themselves. So they logically jump to the conclusion that socialism therefore must be good. This last group may not really understand socialism. Or they may rationalize away socialism’s horrific record as “socialism not done right.” For this group, the draw of socialism is their concept of the moral. In this regard, I’ll defer to Craig Biddle’s article, The Passion of Socialists, for his important observations on the moral motivation behind socialism’s draw, and to my Quora answer to Is Ayn Rand wrong about
That said, there is a certain sense in which socialists are “made.” Ignorance plays a major role. The strongest support for socialism in America is among the young, who are in, or just left the grip of, an educational establishment that whitewashes socialism’s true inhumane nature and obliterates capitalism’s historic benevolence. Many, though by no means all, of these young people are thus unwitting accomplices in paving the road for a socialist America. I attribute this unwittingness to the collapse of education in America. Kids are simply not taught to think; to conceptualize and apply concepts to all related concretes. They do not think in principles, making them unable to “connect the dots”; that is, to understand the essentials of socialism so they can recognize socialism when they see it: No two socialist regimes are the same. But are all united by the same principles--the all-powerful state, the subordination of the individual to some vaguely defined collective good, and the sacrifice of productiveness to incompetence, wealth to need, justice to mob “might makes right” rule, and virtue to vice. This is why, in witnessing the collapse of yet another country under socialism--Venezuela--we once again hear that “That’s not real socialism!” with hordes of people gulled into giving the next socialist gang, the democratic socialists of America, the same power justified by the same principles that the Chavez-Maduro regime used to tyrannize Venezuela.
Socialism in whatever manifestation is akin to the criminal element rising up from the underworld to rule the nation. It is from start to finish a criminal enterprise. It is marked by theft, slavery, and murder--and nothing else. “What makes someone a socialist?” Greed, powerlust, envy, phoniness, and a false sense of moral righteousness, aided and abetted by the deliberate campaign of ignorance of the collectivists’ educational intelligencia, all of it camouflaged behind high-minded collectivist slogans like “social welfare” or “the common good.”
Related Reading:
QUORA: ‘Can you start a purely communist society in the US?’
QUORA *: ‘Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?’
A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...
Sorry If You're Offended, but Socialism Leads to Misery and Destitution: “Socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence.”--David Harsanyi
* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:
** [Unfortunately, too many people are ignorant of socialism’s true nature, and are thus falling for its latest incarnation, democratic socialism--which simply replaces the socialist dictatorship-by-coup d’état, the communist version, with a socialist dictatorship created by constitutional/democratic means. Put bluntly, democratic socialism simply replaces the Stalin, Mao, or Castro with the Mussolini, the Hitler, or the Chavez.]
I posted this answer:
I think this question needs rephrasing. Nothing “makes” someone a socialist. People have free will, and choose their political principles according to their values. A more proper framing of the question would be something like “What draws someone to socialism?” or “Why do people choose socialism?” To answer that, we must first define socialism in its essentials.
Socialism is an outgrowth of collectivism. Collectivism is the doctrine that the good of the group is the standard of morality. Since socialism is a political manifestation of collectivism, socialism embodies the principle that the good of society takes precedence over the individual pursuing his own good. “Society,” however, is an abstraction. Society is not a conscious entity separate from the individuals that comprise it. It is not an entity capable of acting in its own interests, or even choosing its own interests. Only individuals are capable of acting and choosing. Individuals can collaborate voluntarily to cooperatively advance interests they have in common. But only individuals can act and choose. Society is comprised of individuals. Yet socialism claims that society has interests that supersede the interests of the individuals that comprise it. Since society cannot act on its own--that is, independent of individual thought and initiative--who, then, assumes the authority to represent society’s interests? A ruling political elite, acting through the mechanism of the state.
Since socialism holds that the interests of society morally supercede the interests of the individual, the socialist government, to fulfill its function as representative of society, must hold full power over all individuals’ lives—their property, their goals, the proceeds of their productive work, what they may say or write, and so on—which it can dispose of for whatever it deems to be “in the public interest” or to further “the good of society.” Therefore, socialism denies individual rights, including rights to property and free trade. Of necessity, the individual has no rights to his life, political liberty, earned property, or pursuit of personal happiness: He exists to serve society as determined by the state.
Socialism has many forms. It can be total, as with national socialism (fascist) or communism. It can be partial, as with the welfare state. But whatever its manifestation, the basics of socialism remain the same. Every socialist initiative begins with armed aggression by the state against private individuals, based on the premise that the individual’s life is not his own to live, but belongs to society.
What type of person does such a system appeal to? Since socialism forcibly redistributes wealth from those who earned it to those who don’t, it appeals to greed. Since socialism requires totalitarian powers for government officials, it appeals to powerlust. Since socialism systematically punishes and ultimately destroys productive individuals, it appeals to envy and hatred of achievement. Add to that a craving for unearned prestige; i.e., the desire to be seen as “caring about the welfare of others,” without actually having do do anything for the welfare of others--socialism is a cover to force others to pay for craver’s pseudo-compassion, with the government as his hired gun. So socialism has appeal to the phony. Greed, powerlust, envy, hatred, and phoniness, or some combination thereof, are what draws people to socialism. Why these vices and nothing better? Because virtuous motivations belong to the self-responsible people who simply want to live in peaceful coexistence with others, neither being controlled by others nor controlling others, and who respect the same rights of others to live by their own judgement. Self-responsible, respectful people who fully understand what socialism actually is simply are not attracted to socialism.**
There is, however, a more innocent (or less guilty) group of socialism supporters. As I observed at the outset, socialism is rooted in collectivism. Going deeper, collectivism is rooted in the morality of altruism. Altruism holds that self-sacrificial service to others is the standard of moral action. Because they accept the conventional altruist morality, they see socialism as altruistic because it subordinates individuals to live for others (the collective) rather than themselves. So they logically jump to the conclusion that socialism therefore must be good. This last group may not really understand socialism. Or they may rationalize away socialism’s horrific record as “socialism not done right.” For this group, the draw of socialism is their concept of the moral. In this regard, I’ll defer to Craig Biddle’s article, The Passion of Socialists, for his important observations on the moral motivation behind socialism’s draw, and to my Quora answer to Is Ayn Rand wrong about
That said, there is a certain sense in which socialists are “made.” Ignorance plays a major role. The strongest support for socialism in America is among the young, who are in, or just left the grip of, an educational establishment that whitewashes socialism’s true inhumane nature and obliterates capitalism’s historic benevolence. Many, though by no means all, of these young people are thus unwitting accomplices in paving the road for a socialist America. I attribute this unwittingness to the collapse of education in America. Kids are simply not taught to think; to conceptualize and apply concepts to all related concretes. They do not think in principles, making them unable to “connect the dots”; that is, to understand the essentials of socialism so they can recognize socialism when they see it: No two socialist regimes are the same. But are all united by the same principles--the all-powerful state, the subordination of the individual to some vaguely defined collective good, and the sacrifice of productiveness to incompetence, wealth to need, justice to mob “might makes right” rule, and virtue to vice. This is why, in witnessing the collapse of yet another country under socialism--Venezuela--we once again hear that “That’s not real socialism!” with hordes of people gulled into giving the next socialist gang, the democratic socialists of America, the same power justified by the same principles that the Chavez-Maduro regime used to tyrannize Venezuela.
Socialism in whatever manifestation is akin to the criminal element rising up from the underworld to rule the nation. It is from start to finish a criminal enterprise. It is marked by theft, slavery, and murder--and nothing else. “What makes someone a socialist?” Greed, powerlust, envy, phoniness, and a false sense of moral righteousness, aided and abetted by the deliberate campaign of ignorance of the collectivists’ educational intelligencia, all of it camouflaged behind high-minded collectivist slogans like “social welfare” or “the common good.”
Related Reading:
QUORA: ‘Can you start a purely communist society in the US?’
QUORA *: ‘Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?’
A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...
Sorry If You're Offended, but Socialism Leads to Misery and Destitution: “Socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence.”--David Harsanyi
* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:
Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]You can also reply to other users’ answers.]
** [Unfortunately, too many people are ignorant of socialism’s true nature, and are thus falling for its latest incarnation, democratic socialism--which simply replaces the socialist dictatorship-by-coup d’état, the communist version, with a socialist dictatorship created by constitutional/democratic means. Put bluntly, democratic socialism simply replaces the Stalin, Mao, or Castro with the Mussolini, the Hitler, or the Chavez.]
1 comment:
I like your reference to armed aggression by the state against private individuals for every socialist initiative in the context of a welfare state like we have, not just in that of a total dictatorship.
Whether the armed aggression against private individuals comes from foreign aggressors, domestic armed robbers, rapists, arsonists, kidnappers, shop lifters, etc., or from within our own government, what's the common denominator? Answering that question is aided by eliminating the confusion caused by terms like, state (and government), commonly used today, and historically, as they are and always have been used, as concepts wider than warranted, thus, here, smearing state or government (and politician) with armed aggression, meaning crime.
Post a Comment