Even the word “socialism” seems to turn people who use it into rambling idiots:
The libertarian sees the market as synonymous with freedom. But socialists hear “the market” and think of the anxious parent, desperate not to offend the insurance representative on the phone, lest he decree that the policy she paid for doesn’t cover her child’s appendectomy. Under capitalism, we’re forced to submit to the boss. Terrified of getting on his bad side, we bow and scrape, flatter and flirt, or worse — just to get that raise or make sure we don’t get fired.
In socialist societies, people are total shits to each other in a much higher proportion than in any capitalist country. They are terrified of the bosses a lot more, they submit a lot more, and they turn on each other like hungry animals because that’s what the system makes them.
But this is not the dumbest part of this article. The author tells us that the young socialist politicians are great because:
The stories of these candidates are socialist for another reason: They break with the nation-state.
This is militant, aggressive idiocy and hatred of books, learning, or anything that has to do with the life of the mind. This is why such folks promote censorship and howl against free speech. Anybody who has read absolutely anything whatsoever will see that their doctrine makes no sense.
You give these creeps a tiny bit of power, and the first thing they will do is start censoring. The second thing they do is start terrorizing and labeling. After that, they start building networks of corruption. And that’s it. They don’t do anything else. Censorship, fear, corruption. Socialism doesn’t know another path.
Clarissa's Blog 
Reblogged this on James' Ramblings and commented:
Reblogging for future reference:
LikeLike
A lot of truth in what you say, Clarissa, I do not doubt. However, I think that your critique of socialism is based mostly on Soviet communism. It probably applies to one degree or another to the varieties of socialism found in many countries of Europe and the democratic socialism advocated by people like Bernie Sanders. That is, I think your perception of socialism is helpful and informative, but tilts to the extreme.
LikeLike
“Soviet communism” did not exist. At no point did Soviet leaders claim they had achieved communism. The USSR was a union of Soviet Socialist (and not Communist) Republics for a reason.
There are no varieties of socialism in Western Europe. Those are fully capitalist, deeply neoliberal countries.
LikeLike
Well then, call it the Soviet version of socialism. Would that be correct?
LikeLike
Honestly, this is like calling an AK-47 a Soviet rifle, and a Volvo a democratic rifle, to be shortened to just “rifle” half of the time. You can, but why on earth would you.
LikeLike
Socialism implies that the means of production are publicly owned. This is not the case in any of the countries called “socialist”. The Scandinavian model is properly called social democracy, and it has as much to do with socialism as socialization has to do with sociopaths.
LikeLike
Thank you, Stille. Explaining the difference between social and socialist is something I now have to do constantly.
The article I linked yesterday makes no bones about the state ownership of the means of production being the next major goal of today’s socialists after the goal of more free stuff is achieved. The problem is that nobody is listening to what they are really saying.
LikeLike