Socialism Defined

I rarely post someone else's comment or article in its entirety unless I'm giving it a caustic fisking.  However-comma I tripped over my breakfast bourbon and found this worthwhile gem on The Smallest Minority, Quote of the day - Not Real Socialism Edition, which in turn referenced a lengthy comment by Larry Correia, the author of Monster Hunter Nation and other works.

Keep reading if you're a moonbat, SJW, rabid left wing follower, and you're spoiling for a flame war.  The rest of you should know that there are links to pictures below the fold, and such pictures are not suitable for the office.  In fact, it's my personal goal to ensure that nothing you'll find in this collection of zeroes and ones is suitable for the office.



The article from The Smallest Minority: Bernie has it right

From the comment by author Larry Correia:

I keep seeing this idiotic thing where "socialism" is used as a synonym for "government". So if you like fire departments or roads, you're a socialist...

BULLSHIT. These people drive me insane.

Government and its many programs all existed before Karl Marx. Socialism has an actual definition, and it isn't this mealy mouthed, wishy-washy, nebulous, feel good, gibberish people use today. It actually means something.

Going back to the men who created the philosophy, socialism means that regular "value" isn't what drives economics, instead production is coordinated through central government planning. That's the key element. Duh.

In other words, you take decisions away from the people/the market who would normally make them based upon what they value, and instead put those decisions in the hands of government. This is why Bernie is offended by there being too many brands of deodorant.

It isn't social programs. It isn't roads. It isn't fire departments. Or any other project governments have spent tax money on for thousands of years. If it was just that stuff they'd call themselves democrats/republicans in the US and this wouldn't be an issue.

But Bernie calls himself a socialist for a reason, and words mean things. Socialism isn't a blank slate for you to scribe your dreams on.

Which is why almost everybody who has actually studied history at all thinks actual socialism (as opposed to your fluffy magic unicorn version) is evil, while those who have studied history and still want it are wannabe totalitarians and statists who think it sounds awesome, because they assume they're going to be the ones in charge. Then they sell the fluffy unicorn version of socialism to the useful idiots. They tell you it's social programs and fairness, when actual reality is bread lines, inefficiency, and eventually gulags and firing squads.

Chris Matthews and James Carville are flaming liberals, but they've studied enough history to know that socialism is a terrifying evil. That should be a clue to all of you who normally identify as liberal, but who've been snookered into thinking socialism is innocuous.

And no, Denmark isn't socialist, when even the PM of Denmark has to come out and say, Hey Bernie Bros, quit using us as an example of socialism, because we're actually a traditionally capitalist nation with a lot of social programs.

Because again, socialism isn't a synonym for government. Whenever you treat it as such, you're being a useful idiot. When you say you prefer socialism, it's actually you saying you want the government to be in charge of everyone's business, because you think freedom is icky. (which is also why that declaration gets such a strong reaction from everyone who actually knows what socialism is)

This ignorance is partly the right's fault for knee jerk reaction calling every government program socialist. However, they are right to do so if the program is designed to take freedom/decisions away from people/business, and instead have the government make those decisions for them. That would be socialist.

This is also why polls show young people prefer "socialism", because they're thinking of the fluffy unicorn version they've been sold. When you narrow it down and ask about specific policies, it turns out they don't want the government telling them where/how/what they can do with their lives, while some unaccountable faceless bureaucrat decides what their time/labor/effort is worth.

If you're just in favor of social programs and safety nets, the democrat party is thataway (and don't blame me that they suck! That's on them!). But don't let the DNC's suckiness confuse you into supporting a system which has been one of the greatest, actual evils in human history.

Which supports an observation I've made several times over the years, generally referring to the unwarranted attacks on law abiding civilians.  There are certain people in this country who actually want someone else to direct and regulate their lives.  Someone of authority who everyone else loudly proclaims as right - meaning true and correct.  It doesn't matter just what they are promoting; what matters is being able to blindly obey that person or group and know that you are a part of the moral correctness that you worship.

Religious cults require this kind of devotion.  Political parties are tipping to the fact that mindless devotion is a desirable quality.  We, the Great Unwashed, were privileged (even if you're white) to watch this applied theory when the Ayatollah Obongo was elected back in 2008; in 2009 Himself was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for no real reason at all - well, because they said it was a good thing.

Last election we saw the emergence of individuals who think for themselves and Donald Trump moved into the double wide on Pennsylvania Avenue - after it was disinfected and deodorized.  The racket accompanying this move was not a high school marching band - it was a moonbat migration.

Well, it's time for a late lunch.  Thanks for reading.