It was re-shared by my wife and triggered a conversation with two Leftist friends on her page. The essential point Hurd was making about the link between free will and liberty wasn’t really addressed. Instead, the conversation turned to Trump being the real totalitarian, not the Democrats or democratic socialism. One correspondent, who I will identify as “two”, wrote in part:
[W]e are currently headed towards totalitarianism with Trump's policies of "his way" or the highway. . . Democratic socialism is different than totalitarianism and works well in many countries. Everyone points to Venezuela as an example of what can happen but Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Canada etc have a great standard of living.
I left these comments regarding the emphasized portions:
Germany, England, the Scandinavian countries, Canada, et al are NOT socialist. Socialism is the political implementation of the principle that the interests of “society” as represented by government take precedence over individual interests. Therefore, socialism denies individual rights, including rights to property and free trade: He exists to serve the interests of society as determined by the state. Socialism, to be socialism, has to deny individual choice (individual rights). Unlike capitalism, which exists to the extent government refrains from interfering in people’s individual private decisions, socialism exists only to the extent government forcibly overrides people’s right to live by their own judgement and personal pursuits. Adding “democratic” in front of socialism changes essentially nothing. Why do democratic socialists turn to politics? “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”-- and so democratic socialists seek political power: Socialism grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is, of necessity, totalitarian. What else but the total state can be possible under a social system that subordinates the individual to a government endowed with the power to carry out the creed of societal supremacy? [See my reply to [correspondent one’s] dictionary comparison of Socialism vs. Totalitarianism posted below.]
These European countries are not socialist (although Germany WAS once socialist, under NAZI rule). They, like America, are mixed economy welfare states. Unlike totalitarian socialism, Western welfare states still have a healthy degree of free enterprise to facilitate continued prosperity and finance the burden of the welfare state, differing only in the balance between the two. Venezuela is a prime example, among many prime examples, of socialism properly instituted.
It’s important to get this understanding right, because most Democrats now view socialism more positively than capitalism, according to Gallup. Welfare statism is different in crucial respects from democratic socialism. The limited socialism of the welfare state requires the same statist powers as full socialism. But its goal, in theory, is a “safety net” for capitalism, not a replacement--i.e., a mixed economy; that is, a mixture, albeit a tense one, between socialism and capitalism. Under the Western style welfare state, individual rights and free enterprise is still fundamental, and socialism is limited in scope so much freedom remains. Democratic socialism implies no limits. The distinction is important. No longer content with the limits of the welfare state, and driven by hatred of freedom, capitalism, and achievement, the Democrats are now in the process of “graduating” to full blown totalitarian socialism, including massive central control and strict economic regimentation. It won’t be easy to bring about in America. But once we start down this road, the result will be the same as it always is--loss of economic, political, and intellectual freedom, growing economic paralisis and eventual collapse, massive human suffering, and the total state. What else can one expect when the individual is subordinated to the collective? Of what importance are hordes of suffering individuals next to whatever grand utopian collectivist ideal the state happens to want to impose “for the good of society?”
No doubt, Trump has an authoritarian streak--his antitrust threats against Amazon for Bezos’s WAPO editorial criticisms; his regulatory threats against Google for alleged search engine “bias”; his tax bullying of U.S. multinational corporations; his threat of stronger libel laws against reporters. But this is penny-ante statism next to democratic socialism. Totalitarian? Based on what ideology? Trump doesn’t even have one! Next to democratic socialism, Trump is a schoolyard bully. Democratic socialism is the Al Capone crime organization, rising out of the underworld to rule a nation. Democratic socialism is across the board a criminal enterprise, but with law as protector rather than adversary. It makes the Al Capones of history look like pickpockets.
If you like Germany, then stick with what Germany actually is, a Western-style mixed economy welfare state. We can at least debate the relative balance between capitalism and socialism. Freedom and prosperity, at least, has a chance. But be aware of what you’re advocating if you declare your allegiance to socialism, democratic or otherwise--the total subordination of individual to state.
As to Socialism vs. Totalitarianism, I analized it, summarizing as follows:
This confirms there is no essential difference. A government that owns and regulates the means of production, exchange, and distribution; that can distribute all of a country’s money equally; in which government rather than individual people owns all industry, is a government with total control over the economy. Economics is the field of activity by which people support their lives. A government that totally controls the economy has total control over people’s means of survival. A government with total control over people's means of survival is a government that has every individual by the throat. What freedom, what opposition, is possible under such conditions? Does it matter whether you have a single ruler or a politburo? Whether it is elected or not? A government, of whatever kind, that has every individual by the throat IS a totalitarian state. Logic confirms this truth. History has proven this time and again.
Correspondent one attempted to deflect the label “socialism” by linking to Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. Socialism is dead by Hunter Baker. Of course, I read the article and replied:
The key to understanding why Baker is wrong is this statement: “I am defining socialism by its true meaning, which is that the state owns the means of production and operates them on behalf of the people.” That definition is no longer valid.
Western socialists have long understood that they could never get away with seizing all ownership, given the deep Western respect for private enterprise. So they adopted a policy of total CONTROL, while leaving technical ownership in private hands. It’s called fascism. We are already getting a taste of the Democrats’ new totalitarian direction in the resurrection of an idea rejected by Democrats in the 1970s, Elizabeth Warren's proposed bill to federally charter corporations. This goes much further than regulations. Chartering would effectively require corporations with $1 billions in sales--not big by today’s standards--to get permission from government to operate and putting them under political control. That is pure fascism. That is socialism. Since we’re posting articles, I have 2 on this subject--one of them mine. The links are below.
As to Sanders, he understands this. His goal is to sanitize the concept, so as to lay the groundwork for totalitarian socialism down the road. Democratic socialism can be a cover for any government program to restrict liberty, and Sanders knows it. He is a deceitful snake. He is the most evil politician in America.
For what it’s worth:
We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian by George Reisman
Related Reading:
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
Elizabeth Warren’s Plan — We’ve Seen This Before--Stephen Hicks
1 comment:
Although our thinking is quite similar, our terminology is different. If we were to be a united front, I might have to accept your terminology. Your use of the words politics and politician here is consistent with your other terminology. I might have to change my different use of those words. But then, I'd refer to people running a representative republic, meaning legislators, executives and judges, as prospective government managers, or just managers, who campaign for elected office. Politicians, as you use that word here, vie even under laissez-faire, for elected office to use it to push toward a total state.
Terminology must distinguish government managers from politicians. Managers maintain the status-quo: a representative republic (law and government under individual rights). The electorate must distinguish between the two and recognize them in candidates when they see them. The electorate must be sufficiently educated.
We need the simplest, clearest concepts logically corresponding with perceptual reality, understood and communicated by language which is tight and consistent and minimally open to interpretation, not loose, inconsistent, contradictory and nuanced.
Looseness and nuance plus indoctrination vice education prevents the best of human knowledge and ability from establishing the best representative republics possible, and it lets politicians get a toehold to push for statism. That's what has lead to the "Western style welfare state" which, without counter action, will replace individual rights and free enterprise with thoroughgoing socialism as the basic, fundamental rule.
Post a Comment