Doomed to Irrelevance

We are surrounding by idiots on all sides. TPUSA is doing a campaign “Socialism Sucks.” It definitely sucks but talk about being utterly bloody irrelevant.

Socialism means the government nationalizes Google and Facebook. Is that the danger we are currently facing? Or is it the exact opposite because Google and Facebook have privatized government?

High taxes and strong welfare aren’t socialism. High taxes were the problem we didn’t experience in the USSR. Nor was there much by way of welfare.

Conservatives need to stop blathering about socialism. And the Left needs to forget about fascism. We have completely different problems. Let’s start noticing what is really happening.

7 thoughts on “Doomed to Irrelevance”

  1. “Socialism means the government nationalizes Google and Facebook. Is that the danger we are currently facing? Or is it the exact opposite because Google and Facebook have privatized government?”

    “And the Left needs to forget about fascism. We have completely different problems.”

    Respectfully, the first quote of yours above highlights the importance of fascism, while the second quote dismisses it completely.

    Like

    1. What the Left calls fascism has nothing to do with actual fascism. To them, it’s any opposition to their tantrums.

      Of course, fascism is terrible. And the merger between corporation and state looks eerily similar. But that’s not how the left uses the term. So they should move off it and talk about something else for a while.

      Like

      1. “What the Left calls fascism has nothing to do with actual fascism.”

        I know that. Yet, various people throughout have tried changing and revising what words mean and other kinds of records to serve their own political purposes. Pretty much all of them ended up getting into a big fight with everyone else, with very many losing their lives.

        So, while I understand that people on the left like to make things up as they go along and often abandon consequential modes of thinking etc, I think that it is better that everyone insists that fascism is what I said it is as per the original definition so that fewer leftists end up getting hurt or killed.

        Besides, I don’t know about you but I’ve had it with this revisionist BS and am really concerned with just how fast the left is trying to pull a new kind of information iron curtain down on us all.

        Like

        1. What fascism is specifically is a bit complex. Technically, one could argue that communist/socialism itself is a form of fascism, so the Soviet Union for example was a variation of fascist.

          Like

          1. “What fascism is specifically is a bit complex. Technically, one could argue that communist/socialism itself is a form of fascism, so the Soviet Union for example was a variation of fascist.”

            Respectfully, I don’t agree. According to my knowledge, fascism really just means corporatism. There is no test for fascism with a few hundred questions and little boxes to tick, and so sometimes there are arguments about whether something is or isn’t fascism depending on how different people judge how much a government can mesh with corporations before they become a single entity.

            Where I am going to disagree with you very strongly is about communism/socialism. Those two words are almost always a self designation designed to trick voters into voting for really horrible politicians who want to create an authoritarian capitalist system that they are in charge of.

            I sometimes wonder what would happen if everyone stopped calling what is happening in China “communism” and started calling it “authoritarian capitalism”. Since the designation is self explanatory, I’m pretty sure the Chinese would go nuts.

            Like

            1. I would argue fascism is not corporatism, that this is a classic misconception. That comes from the misconception that fascism is right-wing. The problem is that for one, the fascist regimes themselves embraced forms of socialist economic organization, not limited government free-enterprise with an emphasis on individual rights, and two, corporatism (control of the State by special interests) happens with either right-wing or left-wing policy. For example, in the unregulated 19th century economy, we began to see big corporations sort of take over control of the government. However, excessive regulations also will allow this, because with excessive regulations you require an army of lawyers, accountants, and huge amounts of money to handle the compliance costs, which causes smaller businesses to get wiped out and dominated by big business much more easily. So from that perspective, leftism that calls for big government regulation could be a precursor to fascism because heavy regulation leads to big business dominating and creating a symbiotic relationship with big government.

              Fascism, at its core, involves collectivism, groupthink, totalitarianism and tyranny. Whoever does not adhere to the groupthink and is thus guilty of wrongthink must be killed or imprisoned, or at least un-personed (the extreme political correctness we are seeing these days in Western society I would say constitutes a form of soft fascism). This is what the Nazis did and what the Soviets did. There were some differences in what both ideologies valued most but the end result was basically the same.

              Communism and socialism (the Marxist-Leninist kind) I would classify as just different variants of fascism. Yes, right-wing politicians too often label left-leaning politicians as “socialist” or even “communist” which is wrong, but that doesn’t change communism/socialist regimes behaving exactly as the Nazis did. China I would say is a pretty textbook fascist system, especially now with Xi Xinping as the permanent ruler. I would say China is more a socialist system with a market element, as it is very difficult to almost impossible for free enterprise and dictatorships to co-exist together. That is why virtually all dictatorships are either socialist/communist or have a market element but with heavy state influence. Regimes that implemented market reforms often collapse (for example Pinochet’s in Chile). Since taking power, Xi has re-expanded the state influence over the Chinese private sector. Russia has a market element too, but again a very heavy state influence and the economy is mostly dependent on state industries or “private” industries with heavy state influence (oil, gas, etc…).

              Like

  2. High taxes and strong welfare aren’t socialism. High taxes were the problem we didn’t experience in the USSR. Nor was there much by way of welfare.

    I would have to somewhat dispute this. Yes, in terms of the pure definition of socialism, it means nationalization of the economy. However, nationalization of the economy basically is equivalent to a 100% tax rate, i.e. that all labor is owned by the government. The other end of the spectrum is virtually no government with total private sector ownership. There is of course a spectrum in between. So technically-speaking, the Soviet Union did have very high tax rates (100%, or maybe 99.9999% because they allowed partial privatization of agriculture) and a huge welfare state, it’s just that the welfare state sucked (for lack of a better word) because the government owning everything made the quality of everything terrible. “Officially,” all Soviets had access to free education, free healthcare, a right to a free car, free homes, free food, free appliances, etc…however all of this was supplied by the State, and so it all was mostly terrible. Whatever job one held in the Soviet Union, you were not paid by the free market (i.e. the general population at large) determining how valuable your services were, but rather whatever the State said you would be paid. So if on the market, your skillset would net you a high income, but the State says you are to be paid a low income because they say so, that basically amounts to a 100% tax where they then give your a little bit back.

    Also, arguments for high taxes and strong welfare in free-enterprise societies are often grounded in socialist principles. The political parties that push for such policies the most are usually the most socialist-leaning. Now this isn’t always the case, but many politicians will argue that it “isn’t fair” that higher income and rich people are so rich and therefore they will use the power of government to steal wealth from said higher-income people and “redistribute” it to the poorer people. This is, if not technically socialist, I suppose actually a form of communistic thinking. It is a philosophy grounded in greed and envy.

    Whereas the strict free-enterprise interpretation is that one’s labor belongs to oneself, and the government doesn’t “allow one to keep” any of it but rather is authorized by the people to take a certain amount so that it has an ability to function, as some degree of government is essential to having a free society. Depending on how much government is seen as appropriate, higher taxes may be needed to pay for it, but the outlook should always be that the government is at the behest of the people and must get permission to take more of the people’s labor.

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.