”So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves.
“Once the individual develops a dependency on food stamps, free medical care, subsidized housing, all sorts of disability or unemployment compensation, education credits, grants, and zero-interest loans — the entire American version of the European socialist breadbasket — then expectations for far more always keep rising, with a commensurate plethora of new justifications, usually in the realm of someone else having more than the recipient, always unjustly so. The endangered aid recipient is always seen as being pushed off a cliff in a wheel chair — therefore, “they” can afford to give “me” more; things are not “fair”; there is no “equality.”
(…). “For every dollar taken, two are demanded. And that creates a powerful constituency for whom the shrillest rhetoric of oppression is, well, never too shrill. Revolutions are not fueled by the very poor seeking their daily bread, but by those on entitlements that revolt at the thought of less to come. A rioting Greek today is far better off than his parents in 1973 when I first arrived in the country; and he would remain far better off even under an “austerity” plan. But his expectations have soared geometrically with each euro received, and he now has convinced himself that not to have more is to have nothing.”
(...). "What stops socialism?
I fear bankruptcy alone.
Who are socialists?
There are none. Only technocratic overseers who wish to give someone else’s money to others as a means of winning capitalist-style lifestyles and power for themselves — in a penultimate cycle of unsustainable spending."
Victor Davis Hansen; Works and Days
Monday, June 27, 2011
Quote of the Day #2; 06.27.11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
This sounds identicle to what I hear from critics of capitalism.
*Ponzi scheme.
*Elites stealing other people's deserved wealth.
*Will to power.
Someone is telling the truth, while the other side of the coin is sided with the devil, whatever that may be. A duality, perhaps?
Gives one reason to think.
In Europe, the socialist creed has been dominant for some time. Socialists, at home and abroad, insist that there's a most distinct difference between "democratic socialism" and the socialism that leads to the gulag.
Is there something to that? Are the two referred to above different in kind, or in degree, or, ultimately in no way at all?
Mr Hobo,
Capitalism ran amok in the mid to late 1800's, and was brought under a semblance of control starting with Teddy Roosevelt's Trust Busters. The current elites seem to be toggling between mouthing socialist collectivism and yet dipping into the largesse of their buddies the capitalists, whom they reward with protection from their just consequences. Is it better to be a rich elite socialist dictator or to be a rich elite capitalist crony? Or maybe one can pretend to be neither while being both? I think that at least the capitalists would not purposely crash the economy. Also, a huge government does not benefit the economy or the capitalist unless that government is corrupt in favor of the capitalist, which is what we seem to have now. And that type of government is OK with the socialist, too, who gets to fund more and more indebted subjugation on the Leftist Plantation. Or so it seems to me.
Chris,
It seems to me that socialism is vulnerable to the weakness of naive humanists who create the powerful government, but who are blind to the the tyrannical tendencies of some sociopathic power seekers who will seize the ability for total control. Total control is actually the goal of socialist governments, even the naive humanist ones; so the step to tyranny is short and natural. The French Revolution and the following humanist tyranny is a glaring example, and was a favorite of Lenin.
Stan,
The reason for political polarization is because the religious see God-given free will as the prime mover in humanity, while secularists see our outer enviroment as what motivates us. Compare the two extreme ends of the political spectrum in America, Fundamentalist Christianity and Marxian Socialism:
*There was an original state of utopia. Garden of Eden vs. pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer society.
*This was disrupted when Original Sin entered the picture. Adam's fall vs. first initiaton of private property.
*Today, sin is still with us and reeking havoc on humanity.
*Economically, the elites are stealing from us to fund their own empire. Taxation vs. Labor Surplus Value.
*Salvation and freedom is obtained by following the path of the perfect Law and resisting the Devil and his/its deceptions. Persuing individual morality vs. persuing social justice.
*Heaven on Earth will come, but only before the worst Evil has to offer overcomes us first.
See? Identical!
The views are so similiar that I recently talked to a Christian Socialist who told me that the pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is the symbol of the bourgeoise Illuminati!
The questions come to mind:
*Is there a God, or simply a cold material universe?
*Are both philosophies grounded in the truth? Or are both philosophies two sides of a fallacious coin?
*Should I trust either point of view?
I'm also reminded of that recent ad by liberals reaching out to Christians by criticizing Paul Ryan's budget, saying "You can't follow Jesus and Ayn Rand."
Politics. Gotta love it.
Oh, by the way, I don't actually think in terms of the traditional 2-dimensional political spectrum. I consider it outdated and counter-productive. Besides my own reading of history, philosophy and political science, my worldview on politics is best represented by..
The Moral Matrix:
http://www.moral-politics.com/
Holistic Politics:
http://holisticpolitics.org
I highly recommend these.
062611Mr Hobo,
I was with you right up to the last two points. And even then, maybe so.
”*Salvation and freedom is obtained by following the path of the perfect Law and resisting the Devil and his/its deceptions.”
I don’t think that either Theism (Christian) or socialism promise freedom, and salvation is not a function of works, in Christianity anyway.
”*Heaven on Earth will come, but only before the worst Evil has to offer overcomes us first.”
I’m not seeing how this relates to socialism, unless by worst Evil you mean freedom of pursuit with outcomes contingent upon skill, circumstances, initial conditions, etc.
What you have listed in each case seems to be an attempt to identify a common issue which is addressed with radically differing solutions. But even with some of the main life-issues, the thinking is diametrically opposed. For example, socialists (naïve) think that outcomes should be leveled regardless of any personal responsibility for one’s own consequences. This comes at a cost of personal freedom, for example the freedom of entrepreneurs to pursue and benefit from their own efforts, and the cost of government control over personal issues.
Contrarily, the ethic spawned by Judeo-Christianity is that the starting initial conditions should be leveled but that the consequences of the pursuit are up to the individual to provide for himself and to accept as a cost of his freedom. (This is not to be mistaken for allowing widows, orphans and the infirm to wither: helping the needy is also a Judeo-Christian ethic and far more so than a Leftist ethic).
These are not equivalent ethics for addressing a common problem. There are two separate problems here: fairness (equality) at the starting line with a concept of personal responsibility, and fairness (equality) at the finish line without a concept of personal responsibility. While you might think it proper to equate the ideas of “fairness” as a common issue, they are in reality not common in any way.
Now by saying that these are identical, you appear to be making the connection that all worldviews address the same issues, and are therefore identical. I don’t see it that way, because both worldviews cannot be valid given a consistent human condition. Only one can address the human condition in a valid manner, and maybe neither worldview can do that. But certainly both cannot.
(continued below)
(Continued from above)
Let’s say that the human condition divides into two opposed camps: one camp is motivated by personal accomplishment and growth; the second camp is motivated to receive the common guaranteed income without any personal effort involved. Now let’s assume that one camp increases until it not only dominates but represents the entirety of the human condition.
If camp one represents the entirety of the human condition, the upside is obvious, with entrepreneurial drives providing goods to the market. If camp two comes to represent the human condition, then entrepreneurial drives are absent and markets go barren quickly (this has historical validity).
This is obviously an over simplification in the spirit of Ad Reductio Absurdem analysis. Yet the actual histories of controlled economies is congruent with these results.
But there are the further issues of the vulnerability of naïve socialists to tyrants who view the naïve socialists as Useful Idiots – also historically documented. And on the other hand, free market capitalism is vulnerable to tyrants in cahoots with a corrupt government.
The third way is what the USA has at least pretended to provide, until recently. Huge corporations were divested (Ma Bell) in my life time. But others sprang up with seeming impunity, being a source of funding for the politicians supposedly watching them. Still, the idea of an active populace which places the fear of voters into the politicians seems to be the only third way worth living with, regardless of the ugliness of the battles. The vulnerability of this third way is that it might have lost the critical mass required to prevent camp two from completely dominating the landscape. Camp two dominates the media, the federal government, the education system, and that denies valuable tools to the third way. What the third way has left – hopefully – is the common sense of the voting masses, and that is questionable after 2008. It is true that the people get the type of government which they deserve, and only time can tell us that.
I was simply arguing from a political perspective. Politics are rooted in the human condition, and the political realm, by its very nature, is the pursuit of utilitarianism. Now, I'm well aware that Christian ethics are far closer to libertarianism than utilitarianism. However, I'm saying that people's worldviews lead to their political affiliation.
One of the most fundamental questions for one to ask himself is: Are we driven by free will, or are we driven by our material environment only?
Otherwise, I agree with you immensely.
I'm not sure how this relates to socialism
Marx believed that capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction, and if it were to run its course without alteration, he predicted there would be a bloody revolution. Socialists are "moderate communists", in that they're trying to ease the transition to socialism, and then, presumably, the utopia known as communism. Evolution over revolution.
Note that not all leftists are Marxists, and 'liberals' and 'progressives' are not technically socialists, since they believe the means of production should be own privately, but they share the same values as those who allign with socialism.
Also note that Christians naturally allign with the philosophy of conservatism, which is not concerned with pursuing Heaven on Earth, but preserving the good things about society. Jesus wanted his followers to be concerned with themselves and their own individual morality, to shun the world's evil, to be concerned with seeking God's kingdom not of this material world, and goodness would naturally flow.
The secular Left considers this unfortunate, as religion is the "opiate of the masses" meant to make the lower classes in society cling to the status quo, rather than persuing a better world.
Again, I highly recommend the Moral Matrix and the book it was based upon, 'Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think' by George Lakoff as a means to understand the moral values underlying our political discourse. I realize you're not a politician, but with a blog devoted to logic and ethical issues that dabbles in politics, it could be very helpful.
That other thing, Holistic Politics, is simply a project of a friend of mine. I find it informative, but you can ignore it if you wish. XD
Are we driven by free will, or are we driven by our material environment only?
I forgot about Calvinist predeterminist doctrine! Oh well, it still divides the religious from the secular.
Mr Hobo said,
”However, I'm saying that people's worldviews lead to their political affiliation.”
Agreed.
”One of the most fundamental questions for one to ask himself is: Are we driven by free will, or are we driven by our material environment only?”
I’d say that there are a spectrum of drives. Maybe the “matrix” title of the book you recommend is closer. Even a 3-D matrix, but I’m not sure what the axis variables would be, unless one is “emotions”.
”Socialists are "moderate communists", in that they're trying to ease the transition to socialism, and then, presumably, the utopia known as communism. Evolution over revolution.”
Interesting take – sounds right to me.
”Note that not all leftists are Marxists, and 'liberals' and 'progressives' are not technically socialists, since they believe the means of production should be own privately, but they share the same values as those who allign with socialism.”
Not sure that I can agree here. The National Socialists of Germany also believed in private ownership, so long as the owners were National Socialists or at least obeyed them. But the point about shared values I agree with. I subscribe to the theory that the political spectrum is not composed of communism on the left and fascism on the right, with liberty in the middle. Rather the spectrum has Communism and Fascism at the Left end (Totalitarianism), and liberty at the Right end (possibly Libertarianism or even anarchy). Communism and Fascism are both totalitarian, varying only in the details. (This is based on Communism as implemented in real life, not the utopian vision)
And I agree with your comments on Christianity. Thanks for the pointer to the books - I will put those books on the to-get list – I just received two more Feser books today, and my to-read stack is getting too high to support itself in a single stack, so now is the time for me to prioritize into two stacks, 1A and 1B (both priority 1 of course).
I appreciate your presence and participation here, thanks!
Ha! If you told an anarchist they were on the Right, you'd likely get punched. Similiarly, libertarians (as defined in the United States) consider Left and Right different sides of social regulation.
It's important to note that the traditional Left-Right spectrum is based on the perspective of support of societal aristocracies. Of course, this is rooted in populism, and you and I know populism can be the murder of introversion. This is why the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany created more tyranny than what proceeded. It's the paradox of populism.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party movement is called "right-wing populist", and a number of white supremacist groups are trying to, ahem, capitalize off of it. One is also reminded that Augusto Pinochet used the Chicago School's laissez-faire capitalist economics in his dictatorship. Hardly libertarian.
And let's not even get started in the political landscape leftover from the Civil War and slavery. ;)
You see the 2d spectrum differently because you're looking at it from a morally conservative direction. Intellectually, one has the tendency to look at it from the traditional perspective.
Hence, why famous intellectual gasbag Noam Chomsky calls himself "libertarian" and "conservative", the ACLU a "conservative organization" and why Adam Smith would be a Libertarian Socialist today. He's looking at it from a morally secular, far-left, anti-capitalist perspective.
Someone has to be right and the other wrong. First Principles, don't let us down!
By the way, here's a quick outline of that book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)
(I'm aware that you're weary over using Wikipedia, but bear with me.)
It doesn't discuss philosophical issues such as free will. Those are simply my own thoughts. And, yes, the Matrix is mostly based on people's emotions.
I would direct your attention to this book for economic motivations:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mind-reviews-drive-the-surprising-truth
It seems to be an interesting take on where our economic system is evolving to.
As for ideal socialism/communism working in real life, many would point to anarchist Spain as a result of the Spanish Civil War. I haven't really looked into it, but it seems that, as is all forms of anarchy, it didn't last long before it was taken over by warlords.
Like you, I have no patience for utopian schemes, and I'm suspicious of anyone trying to move us there.
I feel I should clear up a statement I made earlier. I didn't mean to imply that the Tea Party movement was fundamentally racist. In fact, I symphathize with them.
Keeping up with the conversation, I feel the need to point out that Lakoff might have a "progressive" interpretation of mathematics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff#Mathematics
I frequently ask myself ask if the contemporary "conservative/liberal" dichotomy actually means anything.
For example, it is commonplace today to think that "Big Business" is naturally allied with conservatism. But it seems to me that Big Business is on the left on many important issues that do not directly affect their profits.
The emerging ideology of big business is to tack wildly to the left on non-economic issues in order to be able to tack wildly to the right on economic ones. Thus they promote racial "diversity" and cultural hipness to draw an egalitarian veil over continually increasing income inequality. It is this perverse alliance of the social and cultural Left and the economic Right that is driving American society today. -written 10 years ago in Front Page Magazine
Big Business, not the bleeding hearts at the UN, is the driving force behind globalism. They see the nation-state as fundamentally obsolete and as merely an impediment to their profits. (If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it - "Network" 1977- interesting and very funny)
Is Big Government the natural consequence of Big Business
and is it the real crux of the "problem"?
How does this relate to worldviews?
To quote Darth Soros, "Gooooood! The Republic must fall!"
This is very interesting. It makes sense how Obama is Wall Street's boy with a quasi-Marxian worldview.
Meanwhile, there seems to be a spike in popularity over libertarianism. More accurately, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Of course, the libertarian standard bearer, Ron Paul, is a "paleolibertarian" and a favorite of right-wing populists and conspiracy theorists. This is also why there's a common cause between Paul, Nader, and Buchanan in their shared hatred of the WTO.
Call it political entropy. I think it's awesome. Onward, 21st century!
I liked the Palpatine reference. But don't too proud of this.......
I'll use another classic sci-fi reference.
You called it political entropy.
Perhaps we should say America "is wobbling."
Post a Comment