What’s So Scary About Socialism?

Some exellent answers here.

My addition:
Socialism is not an endpoint; it is a passing through point on the way to Communism.  But don’t take my word for it…read what the Communist Party itself has to say:

Program of the Communist Party USA
The Road to Socialism USA:

Unity for Peace, Democracy, Jobs and Equality

Communists advocate socialism as the first phase of a new stage of society, but we don’t think that social and economic development will end at socialism. We see socialist society eventually leading to a higher phase—communism—where the capitalist class and all classes will have disappeared, replaced by a commonwealth of all working people, and where national and racial enmity and prejudice will be things of the past. In communist society, the essentials of life will be plentiful and readily available to all, and the repressive apparatus of government will wither away leaving purely administrative functions. In the communist phase of society, social production and distribution of wealth would be according to the principals of the motto, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote, “In place of the old bourgeois [capitalist] society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

Name a single Communist country that worked.

Name ONE.

If Communist countries are better than Capitalist countries, why is it that Communist countries have to physically keep people from leaving (often shooting them when they try to leave), and we have a difficult time keeping tens of millions of illegal immigrants from coming into our country?

Last thought: The Nazis were the National Socialist Party.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to What’s So Scary About Socialism?

  1. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    There are many countries around the world that have programs that you would consider socialist that are no more likely to become communist as the US is. The UK has universal health care and government funded university places, and has had for a long time. Australia is similar to the UK. France has socialist policies. New Zealand has socialist policies. Canada has socialist policies. ALL of these are stable western democracies.

    It seems that you refuse to acknowledge the huge hole that blind faith in the free market has left the global financial markets. Even Greenspan admitted that self-regulation of financial institutions was not sufficient to stop them self-imploding.

    Do you believe that there are some services provided by corporations that are so critical to society that those corporations can not be allowed to fail?

  2. Jonah says:

    Man, this is as weak as the “marijuana is a gateway drug” arguments. (Aside: can we talk about drug policy some time? It has always struck me as an area in which you, as a Christian, a capitalist and a believer in states’ rights, might have very different views from that espoused by the Republican party. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.)

    Once again, “you can’t get to B without going through A” doesn’t mean that A necessarily leads to B. I feel like we discuss this fallacy every few weeks here. It would be great if you started to be wary of it.

  3. Frin,
    You seem to have missed what the Communists themselves say about Socialism:

    Communists advocate socialism as the first phase of a new stage of society, but we don’t think that social and economic development will end at socialism. We see socialist society eventually leading to a higher phase—communism—where the capitalist class and all classes will have disappeared…

    You seem to consider the “stable western democracies” as being at a stable endpoint with Socialism. The Communists see it as just “the first phase”.

    The Federal Reserve is a travesty to the original intent of our founders. Study history and you’ll see that political battles were fought from the founding of our country until 1913 to keep central bankers from controlling our money supply. I don’t trust anything that a Federal Reserve Chairman (and member of the Trilateral Commission) says.

    Do I believe that there are some services provided by corporations that are so critical to society that those corporations can not be allowed to fail? No. If a company is poorly run, it deserves to fail. If the services provided are truly critical to society, then other competing companies, which are better run, will step in service that need, and do a better job of it.

  4. Jonah,

    There is no significant difference between the agenda of the Democratic Party and the agenda of the Communist Party.

  5. Jonah says:

    Except that the Democratic party doesn’t advocate communism? Unless I missed something. If I’m wrong, do correct me.

    You’re not going to convince me that Democrats are communist simply because they and the Communist party both advocate, say, women’s rights. Frankly, I find it disturbing that there are parties which don’t believe in equal pay for equal work.

  6. Jonah,

    The Democratic Party is advocating the exact same thing the Communist Party is advocating. Namely, taking us down the Road to Socialism on the way to the true destination: Communism.

    Democrats like Maxine Waters have slipped up and admitted that she is

    all about socializing — er, uh. [Pauses for several moments] …. would be about … [pause] … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies.“.

    That’s no different than Pelosi, Reid, or “spread the wealth around” Obama. They aren’t “Democrats” in the historical meaning of the word. They are Democratic Socialist Communists, and other Democrats (who are “Democrats” in the historical meaning of the word) are starting to recognize this:

    the far Left, namely communists and socialists, have infiltrated the Democratic Party and are disguising themselves as liberals.

    I never said I don’t support equal pay for equal work. I believe in equal opportunity. I believe in equal pay for equal work. That does not mean I believe in equal results for everyone (because those who work harder than others deserve to have greater results for their greater effort, greater risk, and greater commitment). I believe in tithing (giving away 10% of your gross income), and giving more on top of that, and letting faith-based groups (NOT the government!) minister to society’s needs.

    I am against Democratic Socialist Communists who play “Robin Hood” (“Robbing Hoodlum”) and steal from producers to give to non-producers. That failed system always results in equal sharing of misery (except for the party officials).

    I challenge you to show me how anything in the Program of the Communist Party or Constitution of the Communist Party differs in any significant way from the current game plan and actions of the Democratic Party.

  7. Jonah says:

    Red,

    The Democratic Party is advocating the exact same thing the Communist Party is advocating. Namely, taking us down the Road to Socialism on the way to the true destination: Communism.

    What is your evidence? If you want to believe that socializing (whatever, I’ll use the word) health care or nationalizing banks is the same as full-on socialism, fine. I’ll let you believe that. But why do you think this necessarily leads to communism? You still haven’t answered that, other than to say that communists also advocate socialism.

    When has Obama specifically promoted (even in speeches) literal communism? So far all you link him to is phrases like “spread the wealth around,” which, as I’ve mentioned earlier, are bad laws but fine maxims. (Why else does one tithe?) Essentially all you’ve done is connected Obama to the moral values of communism, and I haven’t been convinced that those values (rather than the implementation thereof) are wrong.

    I never said I don’t support equal pay for equal work. I believe in equal opportunity. I believe in equal pay for equal work.

    Glad to hear it! How did you feel when all but five Republican senators (Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Specter and Hutchison) voted against the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?

  8. Jonah,

    why do you think this necessarily leads to communism?

    Because the Communists themselves say so.

    Communists advocate socialism as the first phase of a new stage of society, but we don’t think that social and economic development will end at socialism. We see socialist society eventually leading to a higher phase—communism

    Are the Democrats in control of our Legislative and Executive branches really Democratic Socialist Communists? I believe they are. Why? Because their agenda is the same as the openly expressed agenda of the Communists. You have yet to show me where there is any significant difference between the agenda of the Democratic Party and the agenda of the Communist Party.

    When has Obama specifically promoted (even in speeches) literal communism?

    Study his well-documented Communist background. Compare the similarities of his words and actions with the words and actions of a well-known violent revolutionary Communist.

    Glad to hear it! How did you feel when all but five Republican senators voted against the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?

    I haven’t studied the text the Act, or the reasons people voted against it. It could very well be that the title sounds great, but some of the hidden provisions of the bill go well beyond “equal pay for equal work” and instead use “fair pay” as an excuse to take us further down the Road to Socialism (say, for example, dictating what employers must pay employees). I highly suspect that to be the case.

  9. Jonah,

    As I stated before, CPUSA advocates communism; the Democratic Party doesn’t.

    The Democratic Party doesn’t openly advocate communism. But I contend that the leadership and majority of the Democratic Party have the same agenda as the Communist Party. You have yet to show where their agendas differ. Perhaps some Democrats actually believe that Socialism is an “end state”, rather than a “passing though point” on the way to Communism, but they are still taking us down the same road as the Communist Party’s “Road to Socialism USA“. They may not realize that that road doesn’t end at Socialism and is instead a slippery slope to Communism. But once they realize that, it will already be too late.

    Again, I ask you to show me where the agendas of the two parties differ.

    I say that voting for a Democrat is voting for a Communist.

  10. Jonah says:

    Because the Communists themselves say so.

    And why on earth do you trust them on this matter? Of course they say communism is the final destination of economic growth, just as you think that conservatism is the ultimate state of political enlightenment. I happen to think you’re both wrong. If socialism always leads to communism, how do you reconcile that with nations like Sweden, which have embraced some form of socialism for most of the last century but never became communist?

    As I stated before, CPUSA advocates communism; the Democratic Party doesn’t. You happen to think that their policies lead to communism, but this is (as mentioned above) quite debatable, and it certainly isn’t the case that they advocate the things.

    I haven’t studied the text the Act, or the reasons people voted against it. It could very well be that the title sounds great, but some of the hidden provisions of the bill go well beyond “equal pay for equal work” and instead use “fair pay” as an excuse to take us further down the Road to Socialism (say, for example, dictating what employers must pay employees). I highly suspect that to be the case.

    I haven’t been able to find any reference to this. Even Conservapedia has nothing negative to say about the Act. You may be correct, but it doesn’t seem that way.

  11. Jonah says:

    Look, I understand that “slippery slope” is an effective rhetorical device, but it’s a logical fallacy. Unless you can convince me that fallacious arguments are a good way to evaluate ideas, I’m going to need some actual evidence that socialism leads to communism.

  12. I understand that “slippery slope” is an effective rhetorical device, but it’s a logical fallacy.

    It’s not a logical fallacy.

    1) The Communists openly admit that Socialism is only the “first phase”, eventually leading to the “higher phase” of Communism.

    2) The Communist Party is an active political movement

    A Communist Party is essential for Marxists to test revolutionary theory through practice. We are not a debating society wrangling over obscure texts. We are a political movement, and we welcome all who accept our program. As Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” The Communist Party USA is about changing the world.

    3) This active political movement doesn’t run “Communist” candidates because the party’s interests are represented by “Democratic” candidates who share their vision of “CHANGE” and “fundamentally transforming the United States“. I don’t have an archived copy, but I remember seeing a Communist Party web page back in 2000 that said the very same thing. Look back at Presidential elections from 1900 to now. There used to be candidates who ran as a “Socialist” or a “Progressive”. Now they run as a “Democrat”.

    4) You have yet to show how the agenda of the Democrat[ic Socialist] Party differs from the agenda of the Communist Party.

    5) The Communist Party openly admits to wanting to take us down the “slippery slope” to Socialism and then to Communism. If you can’t show any difference between the Communist Party and the Democrat[ic Socialist] Party, then it follows that the Democrat[ic Socialist] Party either wants the same end result (Communism), or doesn’t understand what the true end result would be.

    Ever since the concepts of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto made their way to this country, Communists have been trying to apply those concepts to take us first to Socialism, then to Communism.

    The Convention carried out various measures. It voted to dissolve the Communist Political Association and to re-establish the Communist Party. It voted to re-dedicate itself to its revolutionary task of establishing a Soviet America. It voted to intensify Marxist-Leninist education from the leaders down to the lowliest member. It voted to oust Browder as leader. It voted to return to the use of the word “comrade.”

    –From Chapter 13 of “School of Darkness”
    by Bella V. Dodd, Ex-Communist

    Barack Obama: Red Diaper Baby

    Destroyed From Within: The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion

  13. Jonah says:

    I understand that “slippery slope” is an effective rhetorical device, but it’s a logical fallacy.

    Sure it is.

    You keep arguing that because the communists see socialism as a way to communism, that socialism necessarily leads to communism. How do you reconcile this with the existence of socialist countries that haven’t turned to communism?

  14. Jonah says:

    Oops. Quoted myself, when I meant to quote you. You get the point, at least.

  15. socialist countries that haven’t turned to communism

    Yet.

  16. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Last time I checked, the Communist Party USA haven’t been elected to power. I don’t really care that they say that socialism is the first step to communism. I don’t believe it will happen. Nor do I believe that anything that Obama is advocating is all that socialist anyway.

    The last 8 years has been nothing but an absolute financial disaster for the US – surely it seems reasonable to try a different direction?

    Have you travelled much? Had a chance to visit any of those countries that you seem to believe are on the slippery slope to communism?

    As to your point about competition providing essential services – that is only true in a completely free market. There are some areas where you will never have a completely free market – i.e where there are extremely high barriers of entry (e.g electricity generation/distribution), or where there is not a large enough economy to support multiple players (i.e health care in rural/regional areas). In those cases, a monopoly/duopoly can exist and provide essential services which should not be allowed to fail. In this case, government regulation of that market should occur. Socialist – no. Common sense – yes.

  17. Have you travelled much?

    Eight foreign countries on four continents.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s