Communism = bad

Why so many don't see it escapes my understanding.  Also, socialism basically = communism. People are voting for that in the United States of America. What is wrong with you people?

Facism vs. Communism vs. Socialism

I've posted on this topic before but Dennis Prager does a succinct job of it here:

How Freedom Dies: Orwellian dystopia

This is not without an abundance of truth, despite Orwell's disdain for capitalism and admiration for collectivism and socialism.

Bill Whittle's latest take on socialism

 And it's a great take:

Socialism is the useful idiot of fascism

Why "defund the police"? Here's why. The movement among the woke left to defund the police goes against all common sense. So why are they pushing it? There's an agenda behind it that might seem counter-intuitive until you take a closer look.  The latest example (via Hot Air), provides a good case in point:

There was a shooting in Oakland’s Chinatown neighborhood last weekend. A man attempted to intercede when two men got out of a car and attempted to steal purses from two women walking along the sidewalk. One of the robbers shot the man twice and then got back into his car and drove away. As you’ll see in this report, one local resident said of Oakland’s streets, “There’s no law and order. We’re going back to the wild, wild west.”

Carl Chan, president of the Oakland Chinese Chamber of Commerce in response to the shooting demanded help from the state by asking Governor Newsom to both declare a state of emergency for the city and deploy the California Highway Patrol.  

That's a draconian solution.  And that's exactly what those behind the woke left want.  I cannot speak to the politics of Carl Chan, he may be a radical leftist or he may simply be playing into their hands. But his response is exactly the agenda that is being sought. It's all about the centralization of power into fewer and fewer hands.  Here's their flawed logic - if we defund the police, there will be a rise in crime (including violent crime), probably dramatic.  With increasing crime, comes a clamor to do something about it.  With no levers to pull at the local level, there will be a call to the state to intervene.  Once they have done so, established a precedent, there will be a subconscious understanding among the public that the state can do what the local municipality cannot accomplish.  There will evolve both a comfort in that and an expectation. Over time it will become the norm. Municipalities will lose power as it becomes centralized to the state.  Once that is accomplished, the process can be repeated from state level to federal level.  The eventual result -- all the power centralized, all the control in the hands of a few.  But here's the flaw:

Socialism is the useful idiot of Fascism.

The social justice warriors of the woke left are suckers if they think they are working towards a more egalitarian society.  They are doing the dirty work of the corporate elite, corrupt trade unions, the government bureaucracy and fascists and communists of all stripes (from China).  They are serving the goal of power centralization in the misguided belief that the downtrodden of society will be lifted out of misery and poverty once that occurs.  

The corporate elites for their part, are not woke in response to market conditions - they are working under the assumption that as power centralizes, they will be part of the inner circle.  Maybe they will. Crony capitalism as part of the oligarchy may be the outcome. Or maybe they will frozen out once they are no longer needed.  It depends on what turn it will take towards the end of that path.

The thing is, power corrupts. Look at how Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter all unilaterally decided they could box out conservatives.  They were doing it to curry favor of the left in order to hold onto a portion of that power.  But  if you go back to their roots, they were not doing that.  At some point each of those entities decided it was okay to do what they wanted instead of what was ethical. They became corrupt as their power rose.

But as the number of those who have participatory access to that centralized power dwindles, they will come to see each other as potential threats. Most of them will also get boxed out, having outlived their own useful idiot moments. And those who retain power will become more and more paranoid about potential threats, and/or more avaricious and seek to neutralize any threat to their ever-increasing consolidation of power. 

Socialism, communism and everything outside of individual liberty (maximized as much as reasonably possible) will ultimately end up in dictatorial fascism, with power truly held among very few, or perhaps even one despotic dictator. Don't believe me?  There are myriad examples throughout history as proof. Even now it is true.  Look at Kim Jong Un, who had his uncle brutally executed. This happened in an ostensibly communist regime.

Where individual liberty exists, nations thrive.  Unfortunately it is also true that wherever it exists (and nowhere in human history has it been as enshrined in law as it has been in the United States), there are those who seek to pervert it or destroy it for personal gain.  Those who succeed in doing so are not the weak, they are those who swindle the weak into inadvertently doing their bidding, while remaining unaware.  These parties are playing with life as if it were a zero sum game and they are working with the mindset of winner take all.  There are no win-win scenarios that are plausible to them. 

Adam Smith in his treatise Wealth of Nations explained in economic terms why this is not true.  It is a difficult read, but it is the truth. Austrian-British economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek further explained in The Road To Serfdom why the free market informs people and if left free is the most egalitarian option for humanity.   I urge you to read both of these works. This is especially true if you are a self-proclaimed social justice warrior. If you do not want to invest the effort at least seek out more brief interpretations in order to understand what you are mistakenly trying to destroy. 

Google founder Larry Page skirting the system on health care

About a year ago Google co-founders Larry Page Sergey Brin stepped down as leaders of Google and Alphabet. Page, who has supported many liberal causes, appears to be taking advantage of the perks of wealth and is being less egalitarian when it comes to the health of his family.

According to Market Realist:

While Larry Page may not be a registered member of either the Democratic or Republican party, he has given money to Democratic candidates' campaigns. His political donations suggest that he is more liberal. Page has donated to campaigns that support same-sex marriage. He has also supported ballot measures on alternative energy.

...Google doesn’t hire staff based on their political affiliation. However, if political campaign donations by staff members are anything to go by, Google is still heavily liberal. For the 2020 election cycle, 88 percent of Google staff donated to Democrat candidates compared to 12 percent who donated to GOP candidates, according to the OpenSecrets website.

Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren received particularly strong financial support from Google staff for their presidential bids. Interestingly, Google continued to donate to Warren despite her proposal to break up the company and other big tech companies to curb their influence.

But in recent news, it appears Larry Page was granted special treatment in New Zealand when health care was required.  According to Stuff, Page is considered a New Zealand resident under some questionable conditions related to the health of his son. It seems that where his family's health is concerned, the liberal Page, is willing to use his wealth in ways that might shock progressives:

Kiwi businessman and philanthropist Sir Stephen Tindall, who knows Page personally, confirmed Page visited New Zealand because his young child required hospital treatment in Auckland.

Page, who is reportedly spending the Covid-19 pandemic in Fiji, has since left New Zealand, Tindall said.

Meanwhile, it was revealed in Parliament on Thursday afternoon that Page and his child were evacuated to New Zealand aboard a Kiwi air ambulance. The billionaire went into isolation on arrival, while his child was treated at Starship.

The article noted that billionaire Larry Page applied for a $10 million investor visa three months before he went into managed isolation at an Auckland hotel, while his child was treated in hospital. I wonder if Bernie Sanders would approve of this? That's rhetorical, publicly Bernie would pitch a fit but privately he would likely be fine with it because Bernie's a typical two tier socialist, just like Page; socialism for thee, special status for me.

Capitalism works

There's a difference between capitalism and socialism obviously.  But there's also a difference between socialism and a welfare state.  Many European economies that are considered socialist are free market economies that happen to have very large welfare components or in some cases, government ownership in specific industries only.  Denmark and Sweden are prime examples of this. 

Given that definition, in the video below, out of the top 10 richest countries in the world, 9 are capitalist, with only 1 communist.  Of the top 20, there are 5 mixed economies, 1 communist and 14 are capitalist (and arguably 16).  And of the top 30 economies, there are 8 mixed economies, 1 socialist/mixed and 1 communist.  That means 20 of the top 30 economies are capitalist with 2 of the top 20 moving more and more from mixed towards capitalist. 

The point - capitalism creates wealth.  Wealth creates improved quality of life for everyone, not just the rich.  Would you rather be a poor person in America, with a welfare net or in Bangladesh or North Korea where starvation is a distinct possibility?  Capitalism is not evil, it's a good thing that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the last century as it has been adapted in new countries. It's not perfect, but it's a close as humanity has come to a fair and free economic system.  Where it fails is where it has been corrupted and/or abused.

Meme - Socialism is slavery

 

Stop trying to explain things in any meaningful way.  Democrats never explain their positions. They just evoke emotional responses. Socialism is slavery. Let people see that and just work to figure it out for themselves.

Or maybe just add a little context.  The larger the monopoly the more danger it poses to people. No organization is larger than government:

“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”

            ― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty

Joe Rogan and Tim Pool discuss China, socialism, Trump

Joe Rogan talked with Tim Pool about several topics recently, all interesting stuff.

On the potential for war with China:



On the the problems with socialism:



On the the chances of Trump's re-election:

Saturday Learning Series - Ayn Rand on socialism's motivation

Ayn Rand knew socialism and had real reason to reject it.  She explains why people support socialism and reject capitalism through lies.  This is even more pertinent today than when she explained this.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 8b)

Continuing with the idea that socialism is evil, let's look at why it fails.

Ben Shapiro explains why socialism fails every time.



He also explains why it fails at being fair and moral:



Follow Ben's logic and you cannot help but conclude that socialism is serfdom.

Reason TV also explains that socialism fails where it is tried:



And yes, it is evil.


And Steven Crowder explains why democratic socialism is still socialism, in case you were tricked by their renaming it (like they did with global warming):


And oh ya, it still doesn't work:

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 8a)

Another sidebar here from the main thrust of defending capitalism; the argument today is that socialism not just flawed, it is evil.

Dave Rubin tones it down and explains in reasonable terms why socialism is just not cool (I've shared this one before).

Steven Crowder starts from the position that socialism is indeed evil:



Yaron Brooks explains why it is evil:



But socialism leads to poverty and violence, as it has in Venezuela:



Socialism leads to an unhealthy type of selfishness:

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 6b - the Hitler sidebar)

Continuing our sidebar on Nazism being socialism and expounding on the fallout that remains to this day of the lie that Nazism is a right wing ideology.  As a sidebar to the sidebar, it dovetails precisely with Democrats trying to (and succeeding) convince African Americans of the lie that the Republicans are the party of slavery and racism.  The left lies and it lies often enough to make the lie seem like it is the truth.  The purpose of this series is to share the truth, and the truth is that Nazis were socialists.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian

Jordan Peterson explains the pathology and dangers of national socialism (Nazism):

Nazism is socialism, and socialism is evil. But don't you dare confront them or you will be met with righteous indignation despite the truth:

Clearly the truth hurts their feelings and the EU parliament is supposed to be a safe space for socialists. Isn't it?  Kamall should not have apologized, he was right.

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 6a - the Hitler sidebar)

A brief sidebar in our defense of capitalism, to point out to the socialist Utopians who need to be educated, that Hitler was a socialist and that fascism is rooted in socialism.

Here are some explainers to share with your socialist-craving friends:

1.  Steven Crowder:

2. PJ Media:


3. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr:


4. Tom Woods:

Must Watch: A simple explanation of Capitalism vs. Socialism

Prager U explains the real difference between capitalism and socialism.  This should be mandatory education for students, though that is just a pipe dream.

Capitalism Isn't Cool!

Don't worry, I haven't drank some leftist Kool-Aid.  This is simply a fascinating test of YouTube's impartiality by Dave Rubin:

Here's the original important, but demonitized video Dave Rubin put on YouTube:

Saturday Learning Series - Postmodernism (Part 2)

Professor Stephen Hicks deconstructs the progressivism that is postmodernism (Continued from Part 1).

How not to do customer service and more important lessons

A lot of people assume conservatives are anti-people and would automatically side with United Airlines in the case of the man forcefully dragged off the plane because they oversold their seating capacity.  That's simply not true of true conservatives.  We are pro human rights and pro free-market.  And the free market has correctly assessed the video below as abhorrent and unacceptable.  [see more commentary below]

Furthermore, how United has handled the situation both the process before the incident which caused these conditions and afterwards with a practical endorsement of these actions and subsequent forced apology, have shone a light on where the opportunity exists in this situation.  United Airlines has an image of terrible customer service (not confined to this incident alone).  There is an opportunity for another airline, new or existing to step in and fill the void of quality customer service in air travel.  United Airlines will feel the consequences of this, as it is a situation where a boycott might just be justified.  Air travel requirements however, do not disappear.  Travellers will still need transport. A smart company will see the opportunity and respond by improving their own customer service to be demonstrably different - not from United, but from all other carriers who haven't done this.  An airline that does this in a noticeable way will be rewarded with more customers.

That's the free market doing it's job - producers and consumers, supply and demand, reacting to a market condition and improving an industry in the process.  For you millennials out there - if this were a socialist state and there was only one government-run airline, there would be no need to for the sole producer to respond because there are no alternatives.  That is because monopolies are bad for the market and the government, in a socialist state, is for all intents and purposes, a monopoly.  

Think about that when you consider how good or bad your schooling is in a public school.  Think about that when you think about single payer health care.  All monopolies are subject to stagnation or worse, decline.

Saturday Learning Series - Eric Voegelin

Philosopher Eric Voegelin, a critic of socialism, discusses language and in the second video, socialism and communism.

Progressive Socialist Hypocrisy

Recently I had an epiphany about socialism yesterday.  I have a former boss, whom I would consider a friend, who happens to be a socialist.  He doesn't just talk the talk, he supports co-ops of all kinds, he votes socialist and always takes the socialist/progressive side in any argument or discussion.  He's consistent.  He's also a nice guy, to be fair.  But yesterday I noticed something that I've seen in other socialist people I've known and I think the consistency is enough to say it's a pattern. It may not be universal, but certainly it is common among those of the socialist/progressive ilk.

By way of background, for decades the socialist crowd here in Toronto have argued for more public transit.  Toronto has a great transit system..for 1973.   They've argued that we should move away from cars and to public transit.  It's better for the environment, it's more egalitarian, cheaper than roads, blah...blah...BLAH.

Downtown Toronto has a relatively decent coverage of subways.  The suburbs, not so much.  But since the socialists all live downtown in the city core area, they've suddenly become fiscally conservative.  They think spending money on more subways is an expensive boondoggle.  Instead, those in the suburbs, which represent a pretty significant population, should be satisfied with more surface routes - light rail like streetcars, or buses.  

I've had to commute from the suburbs.  It's dreadful - the driving is bad, and the light rail commute was cramped, prone to breakdowns, slow, and just basically inadequate (to be kind).  But the socialists have the transit they want.

And there's the epiphany.  It isn't really about helping others, it's about helping others collectively, until they get what they want, and then the taps get turned of.  Socialism for me and not for thee. Hypocrisy.

I am honestly not surprised, but it's good to have some empirical evidence to back up what we all know.  As for me being two-faced on public transit, I'm all for more roads, but in most cities there's no will for that option.  Anything to reduce gridlock is welcome respite. In a recent post I also pointed out that working from home and telecommuting will reduce the need for mass transit and more roads.  But we're not there yet. So no real hypocrisy, but if you want to challenge me on that, I'd be happy to expound on it.