What is socialism?

An adequate definition of socialism is necessary in order to understand the pervasiveness of this concept in this day and age, as well as to perceive the magnitude of the damage this destructive ideology has created all along the ages. Yes, all along the ages, for although as a defined concept it is only a couple of centuries old, the underlying way of thinking and reacting can be traced back to at least the late Roman Republic, and it can be posited to have had an important part in the decline of the Roman Empire, but that's a whole other post which I am working on.

Let's begin with a "definition" on what socialism is according to one of the top socialist sources:

"Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population."
—World Socialist Movement webpage

Sounds great, huh? Really "awesome" and "egalitarian", right? How can anything go wrong with a definition like that? How can anybody be against such a beautiful thing? Oh, not a wee bit, apart from the fact that it is a totally naive and Utopian concept that doesn't work, has not worked, and will NEVER work, EVER, and the proof is in the pudding ―well if you allow me to banalize hundreds of millions of deaths, and well over a billion people deprived of their freedoms as a "pudding." But according to socialists those dozens upon dozens of times socialism has been tried and failed together with their millions upon millions of resulting deaths brought upon through repression, execution and hunger, were actually NOT socialism. Oh, NOOO, those were misguided and misdirected mistakes, NEVER "real" socialism.

Utopia or Dystopia?

They even deny that the Nazi ideology (they named it National Socialism, for crying out loud) was as much a socialist ideology as anything else that has ever been attempted along those same or similar directives. That's precisely the point of this article, to shed some light upon what Socialism really is, and not the platitude of sophistries and multiple blatant lies socialists want to coerce you into believing.

Returning to our review of definitions of Socialism, even the most staunch socialists know that is a bitter pill to swallow for current humankind (they dream of a "future" mankind where "new man" will roam and whence newspeak will have washed his brain into believing that all socialist concepts are intrinsically true, completely valid and unquestionable) to tell them they would own nothing at all under socialism, so they find it necessary to moderate such a totalitarian initial definition:

"But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership."
—World Socialist Movement webpage

So if you like your clothes, you can keep them. Hmmm, where have I heard that one before? Never mind that in a world without private ownership of means of production (completely banned and outlawed in a socialist world) there would be no private enterprise catering to your wants and likes, you would not be able to choose what clothes you got. All clothes would be these drab, monochromatic, ill fitting, poorly tailored pieces of cloth. Exactly what you've seen people wearing in every singly attempt at socialism that has been imposed on billions of star crossed beings during the last century.

Socialist totalitarian club

But let's say you don't mind a meerkat's hairy patootie about how your clothes look like, would they really be your property in a totally socialist world? NO.

Think about it, if you didn't effectively pay for your clothes in a Utopian Socialist World, they would be somehow assigned to you. Somebody else (the state, the people's party, some socialist people's assigning authority, syndicate, whatever) would decide what you got and how many (or most probably few) items you were entitled to. Now, if for some unforeseen reason those items assigned to you were to become "needed" elsewhere for any reason ―or for no reason at all but "decided" that way by the state, the people's party, the syndicate, or whatever― that any part of those clothes initially assigned to you had to be reused elsewhere and so you had to return them, then what part of "those clothes (items, food, whatever) were never yours" don't you understand?

And if you can't in fact own anything, NOTHING at all, as the previous paragraph should make painfully evident and transparent to anyone with half a neuron, what part of you don't even own your freedom if you don't own anything are you failing to understand also? In a society where everything needs to be decided and acted upon in a "democratic" (collectivist) manner this just means that nobody at all gets to decide by himself what he is going to contribute to "society". Your "contribution" to the collective must all get decided for you by some committee (board, the syndicate, the people's party, the state, whatever) for the "common good." Centralized and totalitarian decision making is just impossible to separate from a socialist, collectivist society, and there go all of your liberties with it.

And if you don't believe me, there is nothing like the proverbial horse's mouth to set you straight:

"In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions."
—World Socialist Movement webpage

Get it? You are just a "global resource" for socialists, you don't get a say on what you do or what you get, it will be all decided for you "for the good of the collective", and that final phrase regarding your "personal possessions" is just empty rhetoric sophistry for the benefit of weak minds.

You, the "global resource" of socialism

Now, what is it the socialists use to try to sell this can of rotten worms to the gullible masses? First there's the supposed "humanism", the catering to the "needs" of the poor, the hollow and false promise of getting rid of poverty. How? They apparently believe in the magic wand method, abolish all possessions, property and money, PRESTO, no more poverty. What they actually end up creating each and every time they have been allowed to try their system is a generalization of poverty, everybody is equalized down into misery, bread lines, scarcity, and oppression to boot. Actually, socialism is a mayor creator of poverty and misery in the world, principally through socialist extremists' insistence on armed struggle to impose their flawed vision. Yet even moderate socialists in power also create economic distortions that end up provoking a magnification of poverty, unemployment, and inefficiently used resources, all of this worsening the economic well being of billions the world over.

A more powerful selling point for socialism in current times: "free stuff," all the free stuff you could ever want, and no need to work for anything because "work is voluntary". Whoopee! Does anybody really believe that load of hogwash? Yup, most socialists swear by it, and it's actually included in their definition of socialism.

**"In socialism, everybody would have free access ** [emphasis theirs] to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis."
—World Socialist Movement webpage

Get Rid Of Money

"For over 100 years the World Socialist Movement (the Socialist Party of Great Britain and its companion parties in other countries) has argued for a moneyless society. In this society everyone will have free access to all goods and services."
—The Socialist Party of Great Britain

Platform of the Socialist Party of Canada also has the same position, as you can see here.

It has become somewhat of a trite cliche but there is no free lunch, there never has been, and there never will be. You end up paying very dearly for the supposed "free stuff" socialism promises, you either pay in blood, with your life, or with your liberty and with your free will together with all or an important part of whatever present or future economic possibilities you may have had in a truly free market society.

"That is to say, you can’t have socialism [free access to goods and services for all] in a scarce good or service. Instead, it has to be allocated. Things can be allocated by arbitrary decision backed by force, or they can be allocated through agreement, trading, and gifting. The forceful way is what socialism has always become. This is for a reason: socialism does not deal with reality."
—Socialists Are Scarcity Deniers, Jeffrey Tucker, Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education

...

Free Stuff!!
...

But what is socialism in reality then? If you want a real definition for socialism, you can't rely on socialist sources, they will just pour a bucketful of half-truths mixed with plenty blatant lies of unattainable and Utopian futures radiating with "voluntary work," "no money," "no property," and "free stuff for all" baloney. Let's cut to the chase, the best, most complete and shortest definition for socialism can be found in the writings of a 19th century French economist, statesman, and author, that has not been given appropriate attention in the current day and age, namely:

"Socialism is Legal Plunder"

—The Law, Frederick Bastiat, 1850

His whole book, The Law, published in 1850 is dedicated to demonstrate how there is a perverse tendency for lawmaking to become the coercive arm of socialism in its many guises. It is well worth a read, it is relatively short and quite entertaining as well as illuminating to say the least. Online versions are easy to find, but I will leave this link here so you can have a read of him.

A further explanation on legal plunder according to Bastiat:

"Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism."
—The Law, Frederick Bastiat, 1850

It is very scary to witness how all of those forms of legal plunder (and many more he does not mention for they hadn't made it into the legislation of his time, such as free health care, free housing, etc.) are included in most legislation of first world countries (and a lot more intensively in most third world ones too) while at the same time all of the economic ills of their populations suffer is being credited to a "failure of capitalism." In fact practically all of current day economic frailties and failures can be traced back to the distortions produced by these legalized forms of institutionalized plunder inherent in most legislation the world over.

Frederick Bastiat

Bastiat further encourages:

"How to Identify Legal Plunder
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."
—The Law, Frederick Bastiat, 1850

Winston Churchill also had his spot on take on socialism, that I, needless to say, completely coincide with.

Sir Winston Churchill

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”
—Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948, in Churchill, Europe Unite: Speeches 1947 & 1948 (London: Cassell, 1950), p 347.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
—House of Commons, 22 October 1945

So, what is your take on the subject?

#economics #socialism #capitalism #libertarianism #liberty

---

Upvote and follow if you like this article.
All follows will be followed back.