This is the preface to a book by Ludwig von Mises titled:
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
Originally published in 1951 with a second addition in 1962 this book was an English version of the original German print of 1922. The preface to the German version is considerably longer but no less profound in its indictment of socialist thinking and the lengths to which the socialist will go to sell if possible, discredit logic as necessary and force if required, their brand of .... 'leadership'
The world is split today into two hostile camps, fighting each other with the utmost vehemence, Communists and anti-Communists.
The magniloquent rhetoric to which these factions resort in their feud obscures
the fact that they both perfectly agree in the ultimate end of their programme for
mankind's social and economic organization. They both aim at the abolition of private
enterprise and private ownership of the means of production and at the establishment
of socialism. They want to substitute totalitarian government control for the market
economy. No longer should individuals by their buying or abstention from buying
determine what is to be produced and in what quantity and quality. Henceforth the
government's unique plan alone should settle all these matters. 'Paternal' care
of the 'Welfare State' will reduce all people to the status of bonded workers bound
to comply, without asking questions, with the orders issued by the planning authority.
Neither is there any substantial difference between the intentions of the self-styled
'progressives' and those of the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis. The Fascists
and the Nazis were no less eager to establish all-round regimentation of all economic
activities than those governments and parties which flamboyantly advertise their
anti-Fascist tenets. And Mr. Peron in Argentina tries to enforce a scheme which
is a replica of the New Deal and the Fair Deal and like these will, if not stopped
in time, result in full socialism.
The great ideological conflict of our age must
not be confused with the mutual rivalries among the various totalitarian movements.
The real issue is not who should run the totalitarian apparatus. The real problem
is whether or not socialism should supplant the market economy.
Think about it when you decide who is best to lead our country...
Well my friend in today's world there are more then two choices. Although I know you rapidly discount anyone who professes to be in the middle, the majority centrist part of our electorate it does in fact exist. And it does in fact control how our country is governed and managed. We will accept change in small incremental amounts. That is why the tea parties of today won't and the communists of the 40's and 50's didn't succeed. They are the radical extremes of our right and left. Now we can get things under control but we aren't going to do it in a term of a president or probably even a decade, maybe not two. We have been digging our financial hole for years and I blame it on both parties as you do. Both parties spend to much but I have to say that the "tax and Spend" moniker of the left is better then the "don't tax but still spend of the right". Which is better for our country? Probably neither but I got to think that the latter has been more detrimental over the last 4 decades. We will get change, gradual change, not a hard swing to the right that so many here envision. It's just not in us as a country. Centrist centrist centrist one day you'll get it.
ReplyDelete" That is why the tea parties of today won't and the communists of the 40's and 50's didn't succeed. They are the radical extremes of our right and left."
DeleteThe left is on a mission to define the Tea Party as equal to the "extreme right." Under the light of day the movement, the largest in the USA since the anti war movement, simply represents the following ideals:
Rule of law
Limited government
Fiscal restraint
Everything else painted by the wide brush of the leftist (self so called "centrist") is propaganda.
Ah... There's none so blind as those who will not see. Why is it that Democrats are the only ones who have any sense? The only ones with answers.
DeleteRick, I don’t disagree with you that a huge number of people have moved to what could be called the political center. The problem I have is with the banner waving of the ‘Centrist’ flag. As I have said before, regardless of my personal opinions and values I have for eons been a fiscal conservative and socially liberal politically and once called myself a centrist. Today we have a lot of groups that have congregated in what is euphemistically called the ‘middle’. We have libertarians, center left, center right, independents of all stripes and a big group of people who, like their counterparts on the left and right have no real clue about what is going on... they just know they don’t like the finger pointing of the left and right so they stand in the middle and shout “Compromise!”. This last group, if given a questionnaire, would no doubt identify themselves a moderates or centrists and wouldn’t have a clue as to the difference.
The point here is that a huge number of people want something done and think that compromise is the answer. These people are like journalists that do ‘balanced’ reporting... and try to give equal credence to both sides of an argument. Rarely is the correct answer to a problem halved out of the middle. The ultimate expression of the fallacy is the following scenario: Person A claims that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Person B claims that 2 plus 2 equals 6. Person C, being a devoted centrist, concludes that 2 plus 2 must therefore equal 5 and should become law. We get this kind of legislation when we actually allow our political leaders can stand up in front of us, straight faced and say “We need to pass this before we can find out what’s in it”. Personally I found that to be the most outlandish insult and dismissal of the people of this country that I have ever heard out of a law maker’s mouth, regardless the political orientation. A good many times... the proper answer (I almost used the word ‘right’ but of course that would have made me partisan) does lie towards one end of the solution spectrum or the other.
Interestingly, there are some who feel themselves to be the true proclaimers and rejecters of who is and is not politically ‘centered’. They generally came to visit the center from a frustrated position on the right or left. They want what they want and seek ways to get the ‘other side’ to cooperate. Yet they do not look objectively at others because they are cut out of the same partisan cloth from which they came. The left/right paradigm is a false one but one used effectively to divide the thoughts and allegiance of people. The unfortunate thing is, while there is a spectrum of thought about various issues, generally contained in the categories of government, economy and civil society, rarely do most people fall cleanly into these two camps. The people who have understood this about themselves have always been in the center... Those are people who, for most of their lives, identified themselves as independents. They are people who looked at the proclamations of the leaders of the left and right and called foul... and were called, outliers, terrorists ... the right calls them commies and the left call them wing nuts because they have always proclaimed the best parts of all political discussion and called out the hypocrisy of the rest. At the risk of sounding partisan(And I am sure I will be called partisan), I would suggest that it is the left more than the right that drives this division. The left, in my opinion is a group of small interest groups who have banded together to force their issues to prominence when, if left on their own, they would be invisible to the vast majority of Americans. Some of this is good and some not so good.
Continued...
At the same time, they have convinced other groups, in the name of ‘social justice’, that is the left and their principles that are required to save the poor and different, thus garnering more votes and power. The right is a bunch of religious fanatics yet the left has a lot of folks who attend church regularly... The right aren’t friends of the poor yet statistically they give more time, energy and resource than any other ‘group’.... and when did the importance of responsibility and self reliance become less important than dependence on someone else? And..... the progressive movement is much more understanding of the tactic of compromise... because one step forward in an agenda is better than none...
DeleteThe hypocrisy of the arm flailing ‘neo-centrist’ is not unnoticed. Folks like Charlie Wheelan, founder of the Centrist Party and Steve LaTourette’s Main Street Advocacy, Ken Block of the Moderate Party etc.. I give Wheelan much more credit for his positions as the likes of Latourette are just a political hacks and in his case, trying to claw back republicans in the name of centristism by attacking the Tea Party… The main problem that I have with most of these groups is that in seeking common ground in solving problems, they 1) aren’t truly interested in seeking out the root causes of the problems in the first place and 2)they strike out completely at trying to build a unified and proud nation. Interestingly, If the people who follow the premise of Charlie Wheelan’s ‘Centrist Manifesto’ were to objectively look at the original points outlined by the Tea Party, they would find themselves in a lot of agreement… except of course for that pesky constitution…. I had to laugh when I first heard about the Centrist Party because its plan is to pull senate seats from divided states, of which there are some 25, so that it could hamstring the government into doing what it wants…. Even sounds like those evil tea partyists…. Fear not though… senate rules can now be changed to totally negate a rebellious group.
While I understand the intent of the ‘centrist’ movement and indeed the frustration in government function, I fear that when we use the same philosophy in politics that the US government uses in identifying people it sees as harmful to the nation… we lose our soul and our passion. We no longer care about right and wrong… only a harmony legislated from above. The Centrist/extremist theory sees every person and every reasoned thought as a spectrum and regardless of their validity, defines the tails… all tails, as harmful. The image of a democratic elite guarding the vital center against irrational populists appeals strongly to many defenders of the status quo, including progressives who staunchly refuse to relent on any ‘accomplishments’, but as a reading of US political traditions it is strikingly twisted and inconsistent.
Of course, sometimes debates occur in genuine gray areas where the facts and conclusions are murky and complex. Sometimes compromise is in order, But sometimes -- indeed, more often than not -- the actual facts can be gathered and appropriately assessed. This is where we allow our political ringmasters to guide us into a thought process that is neither rational nor coherent. I hope that the ‘new’ political center will take the time to understand the reasons for and the intent of the Constitution… It was indeed a gift to the free people of this country and indeed the template upon which all other ‘modern’ constitutions are based. To contemplate and understand the difference between ‘rights’ and privileges and know that the former should be defended with vengeance and the later conceived and honored for exactly what it is.
No Rick, I don’t necessarily think you are a socialist…. But I don’t think you are a ‘centrist’ either. That of course is just my opinion. Perhaps the question should be.. Who are you trying to convince… me or yourself?
If you want rational, sensible comment then read the post by Rick above. If you want a simple glib answer, to a question that neither deserves to be asked or answered, read my definition of a socialist below.
ReplyDelete“A socialist is any man or woman who lacks the drive to become a capitalist.".
Again Kingston not exactly true. There is middle ground to say everyone doesn't want to be a capitalist. I don't, but I am not a socialist either. There are certain socialist aspects to any government, many are helpful to the governed, many harmful. But full socialism, government control of everything is still not a viable option.
DeleteI don't really agree with that King.... a 'true' socialist is the person at the top of the pile who manages to convince everyone else that it is they and they alone who can care for the masses and that self reliance and the benefits of capitalism are a myth.... the rest are just deluded minions...
DeleteIf JFK was alive today, he would label the democrats as communists.
ReplyDeletePut that away somewhere, as we will see it as the truth,
Gottaloveit.