A MUST READ: Why Socialism Always Results in Tyrannical Rule

[CactusCarlos]

http://www.orthodoxnet.com/news/WhySocialismAlwaysResultsInTyranny.html

By Adrian Krieg
WAKE-UP CALL AMERICA - 1998
 
 
The Controlling Elite Love Socialism for the People-Control Properties of the System, But for the Average Citizen the Results Have Always Been Disastrous.

In the 20th century there have been numerous political systems, but in the latter half of the century there were only two survivors, Socialism and Capitalism. So we have at this time in the Western world, which for all practical purposes controls the world, two opposing political systems. (I have already previously stated that there is no basic difference between socialists and communists. There are, however, some very important factors relating to socialism of which you should be aware. Socialism will not work in a free market economy and, as a consequence it invariably deteriorates into a totalitarian state. Anyone wishing to argue that point is asked to point to one single instance where this was not the result).

It therefore behooves us to remember who the worst despotic governments of this century were: Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Communists in the USSR, [Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.] and China - each and every one of them a paragon of socialist endeavor. Their leaders; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin [Ceausescu, Tito, Pol Pot, etc.] and Mao Tse Tung. The outstanding legacy of these individuals is that they each tried to out-do the others in the total number of their own citizens which they murdered. It is a fact that each of these men killed more of their own civilian citizens than they lost in military conflict.

The reason for this is inherent to socialism. It promises things that it cannot possibly deliver. When socialist politicians in power come to the realization that it is impossible to deliver on their promises and political unrest develops, they have two options if they plan to stay in power. First, they must locate a scapegoat on whom they can blame their inability to deliver. Any Jew can tell you who that was for the Germans and the Russians. The second is to develop, and rapidly so, a state security apparatus to keep them in office - the SS, the KGB, [Securitate, Stasi] etc.

The basic tenants of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Socialism cannot work because the cost of services must be collected in the form of taxes, and this is not a sustainable possibility. The reason is that since government pays for all services, neither the producer nor the consumer cares about the cost, and hence there is an uncontrolled spiral of inflation (today's medical costs are a case in point and healthcare is not yet totally socialized). Furthermore, the government has no funds or assets. It only has the funds it confiscated from its citizens. The total inefficiency of a centralized bureaucracy does not help either.
Once citizens are weaned on this cradle-to-grave concept and are no longer self-reliant, they become wards of the state and will not accept any reduction of services. The government subsequently has no option but to reduce services, and as popular resistance develops State repression begins. This is the socialist cycle. It has been found to occur in every socialist state in existence to date.

The current most outrageous examples of this are North Korea and Cuba. These two societies share much in common - both are socialist, both are totalitarian, both have more political prisoners then any nation close to their size, both have non-working universal health care, in both the citizens suffer malnutrition, and both have food and fuel rationing. Their leaders and party members, in the meantime, eat caviar and drink champagne.

Socialism can never work in any environment.  It violates human nature and logic.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The capitalist economic system differs greatly from its socialist adversary in numerous ways. While the socialist system is a top down centralized arrangement, the capitalist system, which can only exist in a free market economy that recognizes the right of private property, is totally controlled by the market itself. Interestingly, personal freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can also only thrive in free market economies. Capitalism is a sort of volatile and confusing situation where the capital markets dictate demand, price, and methods of distribution. The reason that the left is so very successful in criticizing capitalism is because it is not regulated and therefore difficult to explain. The reason capitalism works so well is that demand dictates production as well as price, thus avoiding market inequities and shortages.
Socialism's principal theorem is centralization of markets under government control. This has never worked and there is not one single instance in world history where centralized governmental market manipulation has been successful. This, however, does not deter the Robert Reichs (America's socialist Secretary of Labor who said, "Greedy corporations are screwing their employees, squeezing down wages while increasing profits." This statement, from an economic illiterate who has never in his entire life worked for, or in, a business that made a profit. He appears to me to be a little man with a Napoleon complex, who, while having no clue about anything to do with economics, presents himself as a great expert. Corporate downsizing, mergers, and staff reductions has a great deal to do with international trade policies, NAFTA, EC, WTO, etc. and very little to do with greed.) of this world, who continuously make every effort to centralize economic as well as social and political power for themselves and their Satori masters (the ruling elite).

George Washington said it best: "Government, like fire, is a good servant, but a fearful master." All capitalist functions are directed at free market concepts. A free market is one that serves society with little government interference. This concept is unpopular with the Satori because in order to attain more and more power they require centralization of all economic, social, and political functions. Because of their poor performance in the political frame they have altered their modus operandi and are now implementing their schemes through judicial activism. These judicial incursions, which by the way, in the United States are in violation of constitutional law, have been sold to the public based on the false misnomer that greedy capitalists don't care about the people, their welfare, safety, or health, but that politicians do.

This, without doubt, is a ludicrous statement. The capitalist must perform to market standards. Competition will put him out of business if he provides an inferior product or service. He is furthermore constrained by his customers, stockholders, board of directors, lending institutions, as well as numerous laws, and, if all else fails, product liability statutes. In addition there is a veritable alphabet soup of governmental agencies which oversee his product, conduct with employees, public safety, product safety, environmental compliance, and financial performance.

In fact capitalists are over-regulated, which causes a considerable burden to be put on the public in the form of increased prices. A noteworthy fact is: the most egregious acts against the consumer, the environment, and the public in general, have all been made by socialist states.

[Ptarmigan]

Almost every tyrannical rule were socialists, Soviet Union, Third Reich, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Camobidia, and Baathist Iraq. Need I say more.

[Chris_]

Almost every tyrannical rule were socialists, Soviet Union, Third Reich, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Camobidia, and Baathist Iraq. Need I say more.

And now, the USA.

[rich_t]

And now, the USA.

We are certainly headed in that direction.

[Ptarmigan]

And now, the USA.

We are losing freedoms and government is getting BIGGER.

[Inga]

So how much more will the people stand for, to regain our freedoms. Will we split? Are will we ride this horse right into communism? A million dollar questions.Will our constitution be next?????

[rich_t]

Will our constitution be next?????

It will be if the liberals get their way.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Socialism is inevitably despotic because it cannot, by its very nature, permit competition, especially political competition.

In an economic sense it claims to provide service X. Ordinarlily service X would be supplied by providers A or B who in turn compete by providing better service at lower cost to attract ever-increasing shares of the market.  In a free market system the exception to this is the monopoly, where one of the producers absolutely controls the entire market share. It no longer needs to compete because it can dictate cost and quality with impunity because the consumer has no place to go, i.e. voicing an economic vote.

In socialism the government steps and becomes that monopoly. If the commodity in question were healthcare the government cannot allow fre market healthcare to exist side-by-side. If the non-governemnt healthcare proves superior the amount of money collected for government supplied healthcare dwindles...or worse. The worse being a system supported by taxes which means only those who can afford private care while paying government taxes for a service provider they do not use could afford private care. Thus government services exacerbate the disparity between the haves and have-nots rather than alleviating them as promised.

But healthcare is a commodity that can come from numerous sources...political power is not. There can only be one federal government. Socialism is a monopoly on political power with all the attending ills economic monopolies bring, only with the power of the police and military behind them. A socialist system that is constantly dogged by competitors cannot exist even in definition. The role of president may transfer between parties every 4 to 12 years on average but centralized control of the means of the production cannot be turned off and on as if by a light switch. Once socialist policies are in place they must remain in place.

As conservatives we missed a golden opportunity to espouse the principles of federalism. We should have proclaimed loud and proud that if they want their government healthcare, gay marriage, welfare, public education, etc etc etc they were free and welcome to have it only with 1 caveat:

They must implement on a state level only.

We have 50 working social laboratories that can learn from each others successes and failures. We should be trumpeting the wisdom of that system and invite the left to enact their policies where they dominate politically while leaving the rest of the nation at peace.

[Sam Adams]

Socialism is both tyrannical and a failure, because it allocates resources to where they do not belong.

The NY Times recently received 250 million dollars in bailout money. Not only is that inefficient (the Times should have been allowed to fail, so that its resources would go to more efficient uses), but that bailout money will be used to promote undemocratic propaganda.

[The Village Idiot]

Socialism cannot work because it is impossible to get more out of government than you put in.

[Bertram]

(I have already previously stated that there is no basic difference between socialists and communists. There are, however, some very important factors relating to socialism of which you should be aware. Socialism will not work in a free market economy and, as a consequence it invariably deteriorates into a totalitarian state. Anyone wishing to argue that point is asked to point to one single instance where this was not the result).

Okay now, Socialism is NOT Communism
There are TWO branches of socialism.
1. Marxist Socialism
2. Non Marxist Socialism
Marxist socialism has the objective of becoming communism.
Marxist socialism is REJECTED now adays.
The modern idea of Socialism can coexist in a capitalist system.

It therefore behooves us to remember who the worst despotic governments of this century were: Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Communists in the USSR, [Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.] and China - each and every one of them a paragon of socialist endeavor. Their leaders; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin [Ceausescu, Tito, Pol Pot, etc.] and Mao Tse Tung. The outstanding legacy of these individuals is that they each tried to out-do the others in the total number of their own citizens which they murdered. It is a fact that each of these men killed more of their own civilian citizens than they lost in military conflict.

Nazi's were Facist, Fascism is extreme Conservative Authoritarianism
Modern Socialism is Moderate Liberal Moderate Libertarianism.
USSR was obviously communist not socialist. The USSR failed because of Price Controlling created inflation.

The reason for this is inherent to socialism. It promises things that it cannot possibly deliver. When socialist politicians in power come to the realization that it is impossible to deliver on their promises and political unrest develops, they have two options if they plan to stay in power. First, they must locate a scapegoat on whom they can blame their inability to deliver. Any Jew can tell you who that was for the Germans and the Russians. The second is to develop, and rapidly so, a state security apparatus to keep them in office - the SS, the KGB, [Securitate, Stasi] etc.

Once again Nazi's =/= Socialist

The basic tenants of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents

Guns have nothing to do with it, Taxes are a result of social programs not the motive.
Socialistic Capitalism. A regulated market is reasonable to avoid monopolies and promote competition.
Socialism has nothing to to with national police.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Socialism cannot work because the cost of services must be collected in the form of taxes, and this is not a sustainable possibility.

I challenge you to find a nation that doesn't have taxes.
Hell, ROADS are a bad social program under this guys definition.

 

The reason is that since government pays for all services, neither the producer nor the consumer cares about the cost, and hence there is an uncontrolled spiral of inflation

Once again. Communism.

Socialism can never work in any environment.  It violates human nature and logic.

Not true. Socialism is a type of social contract. So is Democracy and totalitarianism.
Both Capitalism and Socialism are HUGELY flawed. Thats why there's socialistic capitalism, its a middle ground.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The capitalist must perform to market standards. Competition will put him out of business if he provides an inferior product or service. He is furthermore constrained by his customers, stockholders, board of directors, lending institutions, as well as numerous laws, and, if all else fails, product liability statutes. In addition there is a veritable alphabet soup of governmental agencies which oversee his product, conduct with employees, public safety, product safety, environmental compliance, and financial performance.

In fact capitalists are over-regulated, which causes a considerable burden to be put on the public in the form of increased prices. A noteworthy fact is: the most egregious acts against the consumer, the environment, and the public in general, have all been made by socialist states.

Different industries require different levels of regulation. We can't see laissez faire as a one size fits all solution.

[Bertram]

Socialism is both tyrannical and a failure, because it allocates resources to where they do not belong.

The NY Times recently received 250 million dollars in bailout money. Not only is that inefficient (the Times should have been allowed to fail, so that its resources would go to more efficient uses), but that bailout money will be used to promote undemocratic propaganda.

What? The New York times is THE best newspaper on the entire planet.
It's objective and widespread. I can't find any evidence that they gave bailout money either.

[franksolich]

Hey, Bert, sir, how about explaining the difference between "socialism" and "communism"?

I've looked up and down, high and low, hither and yon, here and there, over and under, and can't discern it.

Illuminate us, please.

[Eupher]

What? The New York times is THE best newspaper on the entire planet.
It's objective and widespread. I can't find any evidence that they gave bailout money either.

Cancer is "objective and widespread" too, but being objective and widespread doesn't make the NY Slimes "THE best newspaper on the planet."

I'm not going to have time to get into a huge discourse with you on this issue, Bertram, but let's just say that divulging classified information - deliberately - is not a hallmark of responsible journalism.

Are you saying that such a practice is acceptable?

[Odin's Hand]

It's humorous how liberals always attempt to distance themselves from their like-minded ilk in the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei simply because their ethos was of white racial purity and the context of the day is to enslave those of other races outside of Caucasian in the U.S. to the modern Democrats' party banner.

[JohnnyReb]

Why Socialism Always Results in Tyrannical Rule

It's simple. The lazy, the slack, the not so bright have to driven with a whip while the bright, the industrious, the ambitious have to be restrained with a chain.

[Rebel]

Okay now, Socialism is NOT Communism
There are TWO branches of socialism.
1. Marxist Socialism
2. Non Marxist Socialism
Marxist socialism has the objective of becoming communism.
Marxist socialism is REJECTED now adays.
The modern idea of Socialism can coexist in a capitalist system.
Nazi's were Facist, Fascism is extreme Conservative Authoritarianism
Modern Socialism is Moderate Liberal Moderate Libertarianism.
USSR was obviously communist not socialist. The USSR failed because of Price Controlling created inflation.

Wrong. Communism is a governmental model that incorporates Socialism as it's economic model. There are three types of economic models, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.

Socialism - The government owns all means of production
Capitalism - The means of production are owned by private citizens
Fascism - The means of production are owned by private citizens, but controlled by the government

Socialism and Capitalism cannot coexist. Any merging of the two essentially forms Fascism.

As for Communism, again, it's a governmental model in the same way a Republic, a Democracy, a Constitutional Monarchy, and so forth are governmental models.

[Bertram]

Hey, Bert, sir, how about explaining the difference between "socialism" and "communism"?

I've looked up and down, high and low, hither and yon, here and there, over and under, and can't discern it.

Illuminate us, please.

Basically, there are different forms of socialism, but none meet the definition in that thing that guy wrote above.
What he should be saying is totalitarianism. All the governments he mentioned are totalitarian. The Nazi's weren't socialist.

Cancer is "objective and widespread" too, but being objective and widespread doesn't make the NY Slimes "THE best newspaper on the planet."

I'm not going to have time to get into a huge discourse with you on this issue, Bertram, but let's just say that divulging classified information - deliberately - is not a hallmark of responsible journalism.

Are you saying that such a practice is acceptable?

Socialism to wikileaks in one transition. Awesome.
The times and the Gaurdian went through every document and censored it accordingly.
There was a thing on CSPAN about it a month ago or so. And the Pentagon came out and said that what they did isn't going the harm the United States.

Wikileaks aids transparency and forces accountability.
Much of what they have released just paints the picture of a wasteful and unnecessary secret world, it counters corruption.

And as for objective news media, there's no argument that objective news media is bad. And a tip: Your argument stemmed directly from an analogy without any positive matter to enforce it. At least, the analogy was far too unrelated to your point.

Anyways, isn't it the medias responsibility to point out when our government is involved in questionable practices?

[Rebel]

Basically, there are different forms of socialism, but none meet the definition in that thing that guy wrote above.

No, there aren't. It's a simple definition and no matter what kind of new ways you try to redefine it, it doesn't make it true. You can have your own opinions; you cannot, however, have your own facts.

[Bertram]

Wrong. Communism is a governmental model that incorporates Socialism as it's economic model. There are three types of economic models, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.

Socialism - The government owns all means of production
Capitalism - The means of production are owned by private citizens
Fascism - The means of production are owned by private citizens, but controlled by the government

Socialism and Capitalism cannot coexist. Any merging of the two essentially forms Fascism.

As for Communism, again, it's a governmental model in the same way a Republic, a Democracy, a Constitutional Monarchy, and so forth are governmental models.

Communism is an economic model not a government model. Any first year political science major knows that.
Socialism can and does coexist with capitalism. And it does. Look at the United States. Social Security and Medicare are socialized programs, some of our markets are heavily regulated. We still are capitalist system.

[Rebel]

Communism is an economic model not a government model.


Wrong.

[Bertram]

No, there aren't. It's a simple definition and no matter what kind of new ways you try to redefine it, it doesn't make it true. You can have your own opinions; you cannot, however, have your own facts.

You understand that there is Marxist Socialism and Non Marxist Socialism right?

[Odin's Hand]

Socialism to wikileaks in one transition. Awesome.
The times and the Gaurdian went through every document and censored it accordingly.
There was a thing on CSPAN about it a month ago or so. And the Pentagon came out and said that what they did isn't going the harm the United States

I believe Eupher was refering to the leaks the New York Times was solely responsible for on the Treasury Dept. monitoring of Al-Qaeda's international money transfers that had led to the capture of wanted Al-Qaeda planner and financier Hambali. You might want to educate yourself on that incident a bit further before coming up with a rebuttal.

[Rebel]

You understand that there is Marxist Socialism and Non Marxist Socialism right?

By the ordering of the terms you're under the false impression that Socialism is a governmental model. Again, wrong.

[Bertram]

I believe Eupher was refering to the leaks the New York Times was solely responsible for on the Treasury Dept. monitoring of Al-Qaeda's international money transfers that had led to the capture of wanted Al-Qaeda planner and financier Hambali. You might want to educate yourself on that incident a bit further before coming up with a rebuttal.

So the times ****ed up. That's doesn't nullify justification for there existence.

Can you give me a link for that though? I can't find one that talks about the times. It will be useful when arguing against wikileaks in the general sense.