Socialism and the Democratic Dictatorship – by Matthew Bowman
So there I was, minding my own business, and a Munchkin who refused to go to sleep at the usual bedtime. Really, I’m not sure what he was expecting to accomplish by staying up late.
But it meant I came across this particular gem of myopic intelligence looking for a handout, shared into the Secret Headquarters of All Things Insane on an obscure website called something like Bookface. Now, I’m going to cover every single word of it, so if you’re not used to the kind of statist idiocy you can find online, please shield your eyes lest it burn a permanent afterimage into your retinas.
Now, being tired and a bit strung out from Munchkin’s antics (really, child, you have to be at least three years old before building a proper death ray out of nothing but Lego bricks, it’s a choking hazard), I decided to do the smart thing and just walk away from it.
Ha. No. I fisked it. And Sarah liked it, so she said she’d be all “disappointed” if I didn’t write a blog post for her.
I know what that means, and I am not prepared for a visit from Greebo’s minions. So here’s the blog post.
If you’re not already familiar with the Asymmetric Bullshit Rule, please familiarize yourself:
Yes, that’s right. That tiny little socialist screed has a lot of words that mean nothing, but I’m about to write many, many more words about them, because the problem is that even more people actually live under the delusion that these words in this kind of configuration are Profound, Meaningful, and Wise.
“But, Mr. Bowman, you’re a religious man. Socialism is a religion. Why are you persecuting them?”
Hell. No, really, because hell. Not the Big-H hot place that’s somewhere in excess of 200 C (the ignition range of sulfur, AKA brimstone), but the living, mortal hell that socialists bring to every country where it gets tried. Just ask Sarah’s cousin in Venezuela. Oh, wait, you can’t. Good thing for socialists that there were a lot of other “disappeared,” so it goes from tragedy to statistic. Whew! Break out the Che Guevera shirts!
“But Mr. Bowman, what about Scandinavia?”
That should be another shirt. “What about Scandinavia?” with a picture of Europe on fire. Scandinavia isn’t socialist. They used to be headed in that direction, but they saw the writing on the wall and have been rolling back many of their programs. That’s beyond the scope of this fisk, so please, go ahead, ask in the comments. I’m sure you’ll come across someone who will give you lots of good, hard facts you’ll be able to safely ignore.
Okay, let’s get into the fisk. The original will be in italics, and my commentary from this point on will be in bold.
“Socialism: The government owns most of the major industries.”
Try “all.” This is helped out by the way that many of them die out anyway. That’s what happens when you choke the life out of someone in order to give life to someone else. There’s always something lost along the way. But keep going, I’m sure someday you’ll get it right.
“This is an extreme system that seems to fail.”
Okay, so this type of socialism is pure socialism, so it’s extreme? If extreme is bad, then clearly there must be something about it that fails. But what does that mean?
Let’s look at liberty instead. What’s extreme liberty? Well, a logical examination would indicate that “extreme liberty” is either anarchism or so close as to be indistinguishable. I don’t want anarchy, but if your goal is liberty and nothing else, then true, pure anarchy solves that. Society falls apart, but that’s a feature, not a bug. You could also argue that extreme liberty is ultimate isolation, being the only human you will ever meet. No society seems to me even worse than a broken society, but even if the drawbacks aren’t worth it to me, I can’t deny that it is still liberating.
Yet can socialism deliver on its promise even at great cost?
When socialism falls apart, you have a failure of the very thing it promises to preserve: equality and well-being. Taken to its logical conclusion, you wind up with the same destruction of society as you have under anarchy, with no industry or agriculture to support large populations or making the tools necessary to efficiently defend against one group raiding the supplies of another. You have all the disadvantages of anarchy without any of the benefits of individual freedom, because all that’s left is the enforcement of the party leaders directing The People — and The People become no better than serfs.
This might, theoretically, not result in a plutocracy; but that doesn’t mean it’s ever actually happened. EVERY instance of pure socialism has resulted in a ruling class concentrating all the wealth in the name of defending the people. That’s feudalism repackaged.
We’re talking about something that was defeated by the HORSE COLLAR, and yet people keep trying to bring it back its essence under another name.
Sheesh. Already I have so freaking many words, and I’m only two lines in. Bullshit be asymmetrical.
“Corporate Socialism: (our current system)”
If everything is socialism, then nothing is. You just want to talk about corporations now.
“The government mostly benefits wealthy corporations.”
How so? Bailouts?
Since this is directed at disguising the Democrat Party agenda, we have to assume that this is an attempt to paint the status quo as being held up by conservatives. When’s the last time you saw a conservative saying we needed more bailouts?
SHUT UP, GEORGE. I asked for a conservative. And while Bush was not all bad, it is absolutely unbelievable to me that a Texan president’s eight years has been outdone by three years of a NEW YORK LIBERAL. If anyone managed to win those odds in Vegas, my hat’s off to you, because no one could have predicted that.
No conservative politician has ever wanted the government to bail out any company. This isn’t even a No True Scotsman moment; it just simply hasn’t happened. The closest you get is government-backed insurance, which most conservatives (grudgingly) accept because the companies have to pay into them in the first place.
Now, frequently the Democrats have reached for the idea that tax breaks equal bailouts, and this statement from the original post so vague (“benefits”) that we can safely assume the original author is trying the same here. There are two issues with that.
First, “not raising taxes” is only the same thing as “benefiting” if you assume that the money belongs to the government in the first place; in which case it’s not a tax, and we all work for one giant corporation. Wait, isn’t that what you hate?
Second, the statist left has loved to say that corporations aren’t people, but they also love to have it both ways. Here, they act like corporations get away scot-free (ironically, when’s the last time you saw a Scot free of England? But I digress). However, if corporations aren’t people, then the people who run AND work for corporations get taxed twice. First they have to pay corporate taxes (monthly, unless it’s quarterly, unless they’re nonprofit, unless they still have to pay certain taxes anyway — don’t blame me, the IRS rules are written by hyperactive German engineers snorting Pixie Stix), and THEN they have to use their remaining money to pay their employees, who THEN have to pay taxes on taxed money. So if corporations aren’t people, then why tax these people twice?
Ugh. I have to speed up. BUT THERE’S SO MUCH WRONG.
“Most major industries are privately owned (capitalism),”
The only way they can get away with this “most” statement is by saying that the military is an industry. Really. If you’ve been lucky enough to have not encountered that argument so far, then I’m sorry to break your cherry. The socialist left loves claiming that the military is “the means of production of war,” and therefore the military is socialist, and therefore the government is socialist. They weren’t getting anywhere with the roads-and-bridges argument, so I guess they thought this would work out for them.
There are private military contractors who might get involved in warfare, but under international law that’s not the same thing, so that’s really all they have. I think it’s just because they think we’re so brainwashed into loving the military that they want to either convince us we’re already socialist or they think we might turn anti-military under the weight of their impeccable logic. (I threw up a little in my mouth writing those last few words.)
They can’t say that about firefighters and police, because there are private companies that do the same job. I haven’t seen anyone say that “prosecuting criminal defenses” is socialism, but give it time; technically, no one does that other than the state.
“but still receive massive handouts, bailouts, and other benefits at the expense of the taxpayer.”
At the hands of the party promoting socialism, doofus.
Yes, the Republicans have experimented with that, and it’s always a disaster; and the experiments normally extend only to tariffs, which I think are stupid (it’s just another tax and impacts the economy accordingly), with very few actual bailouts. As I said before, those are always decried by the conservatives. Hell, most conservatives who lose their livelihoods would rather claw their way up out of poverty rather than accept charity, and those who do usually limit it only to family.
“It is driven by corporations’ ability to influence the laws with large amounts of money that results in legislation that favors their ability to make even larger amounts of money.”
Do you even know what a run-on sentence is, you grammarless insult to an already-bastard tongue?
That’s called crony capitalism, and the left has been promising to get rid of that for CENTURIES now. Yes, just pass this next law! It’ll work THIS TIME! That’s how we got the 16th and 17th amendments, and the underlying promise of utopia through government regulation also got us the 18th as well. (Yes, Prohibition was pushed by progressives and socialists; look it up, dumbass.)
“In this system the wealthy become more wealthy at the expense of the lower classes. This system is essentially a Plutocracy (ruled by the wealthy).”
I already covered this point responding to Socialism. Moving on! Oh, hey, we’re finally to the next section.
“Democratic Socialism: The government mostly benefits the citizens.”
Yay! Excellent! That’s the whole concept behind the three purposes of government!
Wait, “mostly”? What’s this “mostly” crap? If you’re instituting a government that isn’t 100% intended to benefit its citizens, then what in the name of Ginsberg’s taxidermist are you ACTUALLY DOING?
See, I’m going to take a moment in the vain hope that someone, somewhere, will read this post with an open mind and think about what the actual purposes of government might be. The following is as concise a summary of conservative and small-L libertarian philosophy as I can manage.
1) Secure and facilitate voluntary agreements and cooperation among its citizens and serve as impartial arbiter, because you can’t have a cohesive society without enforcing agreements.
2) To defend citizens against threats both foreign and domestic, because you can’t keep a society without protecting it.
3) To aid citizens in disaster situations and take steps to prevent public disaster situations, because you can’t maintain society without planning for the worst.
Government action beyond these three purposes is best avoided, which is why we support small government, low tax burdens, cutting or removing government programs that can be handled by private enterprise, and moving government agencies to the smallest and most local level possible for their function.
Will “democratic socialism” give this to us? Considering that everyone who supports and promotes it wants MORE government, HIGHER taxes, REDUCED private enterprise, and CENTRALIZED government, I highly doubt it. But what do I know? I’m just a knuckle-dragging conservative who actually read books in college without red covers.
“Most major industries are privately owned (capitalism),”
“but they have to stand on their own without handouts from the government.”
This is so obviously an attempt to appeal to conservatives that I’m not even insulted. I’m just amused. You REALLY think that a rightist is going to fall for the claim that socialism increases personal responsibility and fiscal solvency? Really?
“The tax burden previously funneled to the wealthy corporations is used to improve the lives of citizens instead.”
Again, this only works if you believe that all money belongs to The State, and we all work for a giant corporation called The State. A tax that does not exist does not equal government support.
“This enables the government to help fund improvements to public services such as: Police, Firemen, Libraries, Roads and Interstates, Education, and Healthcare.”
Every single one of those things is currently funded by government, and two of them absolutely should not be. Can you guess which ones?
“The system is driven by people working together and lifting each other up.”
Oh, wait, you’re serious. Let me laugh harder.
“In this system the middle class thrives and poverty decreases.”
This has already happened under what you called corporate socialism. Even the statist left, masters of goalpost movement, can’t move the goalposts fast enough to keep up with the growth of middle class wealth in the United States over the last hundred years alone. When you add in England and go back nine hundred years to the document that is the most direct ancestor of the Constitution (the Coronation Charter of 1100, look it up), you can see so clearly that middle class growth is directly due to the freedom to perform private business that you’ll briefly think you have the necessary clarity of vision to read a map revealing the location of your gluteus overly maximus.
“This system is more Democratic (ruled by the people) than our current system.”
How so? Because you’ve increased the regulatory burden on ordinary citizens? Because you’ve made them more dependent on government handouts? Because you’ve driven everyone who can leave to get out, leaving only those who have no choice but to accept a 100% voter return for El Dictadora? (And yes, I do understand Spanish pronouns better than any current Democrat presidential candidate.) You can call it a democratic dictatorship, but it has to be one or the other.
Go back and caress your tear-and-other-stained copy of The Communist Manifesto, you pompous dick-nosed slimy idiotic syphilitic camel-infested bundle of shameless quarter-witted monkey-twisting puny nosehairs. You’re about as useful as a condom dispenser in a Vatican toilet.
Now I just need to get my Munchkin to sleep.
Matthew Bowman can be found at his apolitical Novel Ninja blog (desperately in need of new blog posts but still open for business and accepting manuscripts for editing), where he is frequently confused for a moderate by the ill-prepared; and at Write of Center Authors on Facebook, where he is in the process of setting up a writing-support organization for freedom-loving authors, editors, publishers, and cover artists. He’s not normally this caustically creative, but baby-induced tiredness makes him loopy and Sarah assured him it would be, on occasion, hilarious.