1
   

Go Socialism!

 
 
rayban1
 
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 10:13 pm
Weapons of mass disinformation


By Richard W. Rahn

If someone advocates an ideology that has contempt for the individual and has caused untold economic misery and the deaths of hundreds of millions at the hands of their governments, what would you think of that person?
The ideology I refer to is, of course, socialism and its numerous variations, including the utopian socialists, the Fabian socialists, the National Socialists, and, naturally, the communists. Socialism is simply an economic system where the government (or collective) owns and controls the means of production. Given that the two centuries of socialists' experiments, whether by utopians, Marxists, or Fabians, always ended in economic failure and a loss of personal liberty, why are people around the globe still proudly proclaiming themselves socialists? Socialist parties are still popular in parts of Europe, Latin American, and in much of Africa. Socialist parties have been elected to power in both Spain and Portugal in recent months. Many college professors and students on U.S. campuses claim to be socialists.
The "national socialists" caused the death of tens of millions of people. The communists in Russia, China, Cambodia and elsewhere caused the collective deaths of more than 100 million people and impoverished billions of others. (I happened to be at the Kremlin in Moscow in August 1992, when the Russia demographers announced they had determined there were 63 million "excess deaths" in the Soviet Union during Josef Stalin's reign -- 1923-53.)
The Third World socialists have kept their countries unnecessarily mired in poverty for a half-century. The democratic socialists gained control in England in 1945 under Clement Attlee. As a result, the British economy was run into the ground. Hence the British people voted to reprivatize their economy under Margaret Thatcher beginning in 1979.
Other democratic socialist economies had the same types of failure, so by the 1980s privatization became the vogue as it was obviously necessary to re-ignite economic growth.
Yet, the socialists keep coming back. They deny or ignore previous failures and say the next time "we will do it right." Socialism only fails and will continue to fail because its theory is as flawed as its practice.
Back in the 1920s, the eminent economist Ludwig von Mises showed socialism it could not work because it could not provide a functional alternative to the price system to properly allocate resources. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, F.A. Hayek, provided the definitive proof of why socialism could not work in his last book, "The Fatal Conceit." The argument in essence is that if the whole world were socialist there would be no objective way to determine prices, thus no way to allocate resources efficiently.
If people knew the real history of all the socialist experiments and its flawed theory, very few (other than the delusional or mean-spirited) would be socialists. People do not know the history of socialist disasters because the educational establishment and much of the news media have engaged in a massive cover-up. The large majority of teachers throughout the world are government employees or depend on government grants. All too many are thus understandably hostile to the idea government enterprises do not work as advertised and, hence, reluctant to both teach and allow materials in the classroom that show the socialist model neither works in practice or theory. Surveys in the U.S. and elsewhere show the overwhelming majority of professors and public school teachers are on the left side of the political spectrum, so one should not be shocked they hesitate to teach history and theory that show their self-interested ideology is a failure.
Much of the electronic media in the world are either owned or controlled by governments. In the U.S., National Public Radio (NPR) provides a steady diet of the alleged failures of those in the private sector, with scant mention of the endless failures of socialist undertakings, let alone the reasons. Many NPR stations are now airing the BBC in part to further propagandize Americans in the socialist way of thinking. (Most Americans do not realize the government-owned BBC is increasingly monopolizing the broadcast media in Britain and, particularly, news to the benefit of the left.)
The employees of these socialist media are disinclined to bite the hand that feeds them, and many do not know any better. The situation is not much improved in the print media. Most reporters have been fed a steady diet of leftist and socialist propaganda from both their schools and from government agencies, and too few are willing to do the independent study and research to discover and, in turn, report the truth.
Perhaps the Internet will be our salvation, because it enables good people of conscience to get out the facts about the human misery caused by 200 years of socialist experimentation, without first being filtered by left-leaning information controllers.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 9,465 • Replies: 222
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 12:36 am
It's always interesting to learn these fatcs about socialism.

I sincerely hope, Tony Blair, the leader of a rather wellknown socialistic party, reads this as well.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 12:58 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
It's always interesting to learn these fatcs about socialism.

I sincerely hope, Tony Blair, the leader of a rather wellknown socialistic party, reads this as well.


Walter,

Even for you that was a meaningless quibble. I believe Blair's party is called the Labor Party, not the Socialist party. Moreover, apart from sustaining and somewhat improving the various social insurance programs that also existed throughout the Thatcher/Major era, Blair has most certainly not pursued socialist economic policies in Britain.

The piece quoted above contains a serious argument and it merits serious comment. That was not serious,
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 01:14 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Walter,

Even for you that was a meaningless quibble. I believe Blair's party is called the Labor Party, not the Socialist party. Moreover, apart from sustaining and somewhat improving the various social insurance programs that also existed throughout the Thatcher/Major era, Blair has most certainly not pursued socialist economic policies in Britain.

The piece quoted above contains a serious argument and it merits serious comment. That was not serious,


Well, although I couldn't become a member of the Labour Party until now due to legal reason (= statute), I know quite well, what party I support:

Quote:
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.'

Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution
Source
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 08:59 am
Walter wrote:

From the Labor Party Constitution..............."It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential"

"SO AS TO CREATE FOR EACH OF US THE MEANS TO REALISE OUR TRUE POTENTIAL"??????..........in these words there is the explicit inference that the INDIVIDUAL has value.................how can this be when the State owns and controls the means of production and every action is supposedly taken for the betterment of the community? In other words........FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITIES....TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS.

Where is the environment and the means for the INDIVIDUAL to realise his full potential?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 09:11 am
rayban1 wrote:

Where is the environment and the means for the INDIVIDUAL to realise his full potential?


Actually, I don't understand your question.
But since it might be different in the USA:

it's from the program of a polictical party (here clause 4 from the constitution of the main Socialist party in Britain, the Labour Party).

Political parties are group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power.
Therefore, they think about a program, write it down and get it decide it a party conference.

You perhaps call that 'guide lines ' or similar.

To find out more, you may look HERE
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 09:17 am
Walter wrote:

Actually, I don't understand your question.
But since it might be different in the USA:

NO...Walter.....You understand my question precisely!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 09:31 am
Well, when you say so.

So my answer was helpful?
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 09:32 am
Let me see if I have this clear, RayBan. We all know that socialism/communism is an economic system as opposed to a type of government, right? Now lets examine the political aspect. Is the labor party in concert with the working class as the house of lords is with the upper echelon? Most of you understand that supposedly the Republican party has historically been comprised of the wealthy, just as the Democratic party has been equated with the average American. (if there is such a thing.).

So exactly how do they cross lines?

One more question. Why do you always give Walter such a hard time?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 09:44 am
If that was the question, was Letty explained, the answer easily could be found with my two links:
Quote:
The values Labour stands for today are those which have guided it throughout its existence.

- social justice
- strong community and strong values
- reward for hard work
- decency
- rights matched by responsibilities




Letty wrote:


One more question. Why do you always give Walter such a hard time?


I'm a Nazi he believes. Due to the fact that I am German ("superior race" he could that) and write with sarcasm.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 09:57 am
Ah, I see Walter. I'm not exactly a student of economics, but I do know some stuff, and I will look carefully at your links later. One thing that I do know, however. Walter is about as much of a Nazi as I am.

We often tend to make sweeping generalizations, do we not?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 10:47 am
Letty

Gosh Letty.....your naivete is a wonder to behold. Don't you think all those Millions that died under communism would be interested to know that it was merely an "economic system" that killed them.

Also your "labels" for Democrat and Republican are interesting but of course false in today's world. I would propose we change the "Label' Republican to:
"The party of the people" and the Democrats being the "The liars and obstructionists residing in Left field"


Walter is a fine gentleman who indulges in "fine humour"......when he can get away with it.

Letty, my words are of course in good fun because it is evident that there is no serious diiscussion to be had at this point.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 11:16 am
Quote:
I would propose we change the "Label' Republican to:
"The party of the people" and the Democrats being the "The liars and obstructionists residing in Left field"

-----------
Quote:
it is evident that there is no serious diiscussion to be had at this point.

exactly.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 11:32 am
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
I would propose we change the "Label' Republican to:
"The party of the people" and the Democrats being the "The liars and obstructionists residing in Left field"

-----------
Quote:
it is evident that there is no serious diiscussion to be had at this point.

exactly.


Now.....how did I know that you were lurking there in the woodwork? The guy with the ugliest hat and the biggest nose in all of Arizona.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 11:34 am
gosh, thanks for sharing your obersvations ray, perhaps adding fiber to you diet would help your personality, probably not.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 11:45 am
UR welcome DYS
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 11:47 am
Scroll

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 12:22 pm
My, my. And here all this time I thought it was a totalitarian government under Stalin that was responsible for the deaths in the old Soviet Union and in other countries.

Well, being a mere woman, I suppose I ought to remain naive as it's quite fetching to despots.

Don't forget to add to your observations concerning dys and Walter:

Scholars and gentlemen.

And you're right; it's all in fun.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 12:41 pm
Letty

Just one last question: How can you have anything but a totalitarian form of gov't under Socialism? I think what they forgot to tell you is that while all the peasants are working like hell and giving to some lazy SOB who won't work or says he can't work, the Elitists have grabbed power and have done away with any form of opposition party and all other freedoms including the newspapers.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 01:04 pm
two things, rayban.

I once heard, in passing, a news reporter on TV quote some New England
patriarch who casually observed:

The trouble with democracy is that the peasants have money. Rolling Eyes

We met, while camping, a man who had defected from a communist regime who explained that he managed to sneak across the border by bribing the guard with a fifth of Vodka and $15.00. His explanation for being dissatisfied, was that he had the top job in his country--that of engineer, and he had to save for three months to buy a pair of shoes, because shoes had been declared a luxury. I don't believe that is true under socialism.

I will concede one point about socialism, and that is the long waiting period that many folks have to experience under that health care system, but right now, in America, it is just as bad in a different way.

Look, all. I was born in America, and I love my country, but this does not prevent me from seeing her foibles.

Anyway, thanks for allowing ME to vent a bit.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Go Socialism!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 05:16:35