Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

Socialism vs. Communism

by Leave a Comment

Often, when comparing policies of socialist governments, or proposed ideals of the Democratic Party here, which is increasingly influenced by the radical extremist organization, “Democratic Socialists of America,” one will encounter a reactionary, reflexive, overly defensive statement to the effect of, “Socialism is not communism!”

That is glib sloganeering, and also, exceedingly misleading or disingenuous.

A few points…
1. Marxism: They’re branches of the same ideological tree (Marxist theory). In Marxist theory, socialism is the transitional phase to communism. Socialism involves state control of production, nominally for workers (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution”), while full communism is the classless, stateless endgame (“to each according to his needs”) with no private property. Lenin, Marx and others explicitly framed it this way. There is a reason the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had its name.

Socialism isn’t communism the same way adolescence isn’t adulthood — it’s the stepping stone. History shows the “transition” rarely ends…just slows or gets temporarily distracted, without some form of true revolution or outside military intervention.

2. Shared core, regardless of semantic games: Rejection of private property and markets — both nominal systems advocate public/collective ownership of the means of production (factories, land, computing, energy, other resources) over private enterprise. Communism goes further (no private property at all, often via revolution), while socialism allows some private ownership but with heavy state regulation/redistribution. In other words, distinctions that are semantically correct but functionally meaningless!

That’s because socialism and communism differ in degree, not kind. Both subordinate individual liberties to collective control. So-called “Democratic socialists” still push expansive government ownership and planning (look up the latest DSA platform*). This historically concentrates great power and money into centralized bureaucracies. Human nature is to abuse great power and control over unearned treasury largesse.

3. Historical track record: Socialism often leads to or masks authoritarian communism. Regimes like the USSR, China, Cuba, and Venezuela called themselves explicitly socialist, while pursuing communist goals (e.g., “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” as I noted above; Chinese Communist Party’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics”). Even the Nazis were socialist; it was firmly amid their name (National Socialist Party), and like many others, including their war opposition in the USSR, their “socialist” experiments involved one-party rule, suppression of dissent, and economic centralization. Two sides of the same tyrannical coin!

Yet logically, failures of “real socialism” are frequently dismissed as “not true socialism,” which is a classical No True Scotsman fallacy, and as such, easily exposed as invalid rhetoric. Every major 20th-century communist state and the German Nazis started as or claimed to be socialist. Body count: tens of millions (famines, purges, gulags, Holocaust). The supposed distinctions didn’t save the victims.

4. Convergent incentives and outcomes: Without market prices and private property, both struggle with calculation problems (Mises/Hayek critique), leading to shortages, inefficiency, and coercion. So-called “Democratic socialism” often slides toward more controls when voluntary cooperation falters. That occurs when citizens realize that: a) they have lost liberty, b) they are poorer, and/or c) their bureaucratic overlords are corrupt and untrustworthy (a feature common to all forms of governance, but rampant in collectivist states).

Nordic models (often cited) pose as pseudo-capitalist welfare states with free markets, strong property rights, and high economic freedom — generally, not socialist ownership of production. However, socialism nominally sells the compassionate halfway house. Reality: it inherits communism’s knowledge and incentive problems, just with slower erosion of freedoms and prosperity.

5. Rhetorical sleight-of-hand: The phrase is often used to distance “nice” policies (welfare, regulation) from authoritarian failures. But classical socialism (e.g., nationalization) goes well beyond that. “Socialism is not communism” is a semantically crafted PR slogan, a parlor trick with words, not reality on the ground. When it expands state control over energy, healthcare, housing, or speech, it follows the same logic: bureaucratic elites deciding “the greater good” over voluntary exchange.

If I’m too wordy for you on this, here’s a bullet list from commentator Michael Smith for shorter attention spans:

    “Democratic socialism” is an oxymoron.
    • Central planning requires centralized power. Someone must decide what gets produced, by whom, and for whom.
    • No planner possesses enough knowledge. Economic information is dispersed among millions of individuals and cannot be effectively centralized.
    • Planning replaces voluntary choices with political decisions. Resource allocation becomes a matter of government judgment rather than market exchange.
    • Democracy struggles to sustain comprehensive planning. Citizens rarely agree on the countless tradeoffs required, leading to political conflict.
    • Conflict drives greater coercion. As voluntary cooperation breaks down, government increasingly relies on regulation, mandates, and enforcement.
    • Economic control becomes political control. A government that directs livelihoods inevitably gains leverage over individual behavior.
    • Liberty erodes incrementally. Each planning failure invites additional intervention, concentrating more power in the state.
    • The destination is authoritarianism, not because it is intended, but because it becomes necessary to preserve the planned system.
    I agree with F.A. Hayek:
    Democracy can elect a socialist government, but a fully socialist economy cannot remain genuinely democratic for long because comprehensive economic planning requires a concentration of power incompatible with individual liberty and limited government.”
    — Michael Smith

There’s your (lower-case) libertarian lesson on socialism and communism for the year. It would be wise to heed!

=====================================================

* Footnote:
The DSA’s new platform is as authoritarian/Communist as can be, while avoiding the C word. Truly batshit crazy, horrifying, dystopian, far-left extremism, including:
1. Forbid bills (payment invoice) for any person
2. Government-run food, transportation, housing, medicine, and nationalization of large corporations and essential industries (Communism!)
3. The drafting of a “new Constitution”
4. Defunding the Department of War/Defense
5. Slavery “reparations”
6. Unlimited free abortion and “gender-affirming care” for all, including minor children with underdeveloped brains;
7. Taxpayers cover all student debt and unlimited “free” higher education for all (payable only through top-down coercion, of course);
8. Taking “steps toward fully abolishing the police and prison system”
9. Ending all deportations, providing amnesty for all illegal immigrants, and allowing unlimited migration to America (fully open borders)
10. Abolishing the Presidency, Supreme Court, and Senate (in effect, destroying the Constitution)

I’m not going to give their site clicks by linking here, but the DSA platform is not hard to find for those morbidly interested.

Critical Thinking as Applied to an Overseas News Item

by Leave a Comment

This should go without saying, but a reminder can’t hurt: Don’t take “news” stories on their face. Examine critically. It’s a good brain exercise, as well as a needed and healthy self-defense mechanism for the mind. Consider sourcing, context, possible agendas, motivations, angles, and as appropriate, what’s not said about a story. This includes unstated aspects regarding the subject(s) of a story, in context of who they are, how they live, and past statements and actions. It’s easier to do for stories promoting themes you don’t like, but should be done for those with which you agree as well.

I’ll offer one recent example among countless many possibilities. A few critical thoughts on Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro’s criticism of European response to Koran burning…

* As for the subject of Maduro’s ire: I personally don’t approve of Koran burning and won’t be doing so — not because I’m afraid of anyone or anything, but because I see no productive point in it. The thought of doing so really hasn’t occurred to me, much as I have condemned many aspects of radical Islamism taken straight from the Koran’s most hideous teachings and violent verses.

* Freedom of expression and religion are duly and rightly codified in the very first amendment to my nation’s Constitution. As a staunch proponent of liberty, I ardently support and agree with the First Amendment in its literal, black and white words. That includes the freedom to write everything I write here today. I personally don’t approve Koran burning, but I support the freedom of others to do so as a means of expression. Same goes for Bible burning (my own good book!), which I intensely oppose morally, but which is a protected means of expression for some. I personally don’t approve of much of the Koran itself, but I support the freedom of others to express and worship from it peacefully, whenever and wherever they wish. I personally don’t approve of much of what the Left endorses, nor statements of truly racist people on either end of the sociopolitical spectrum, but I support all their freedom to make awful statements. [As I often write: The First Amendment doesn’t say “except” or “unless”! Expressions of leftism or racism, much as I detest both, are, and should be, Constitutionally protected.] I also expect to exercise my freedom of expression without governmental restraint: to approve or disapprove of anything…to oppose parts of the Koran, to attack leftism and collectivism as I often do, and to discuss freely anyone’s statements or other behavior regarding any topic. Maduro’s endorsement of governmental restrictions on expression fly in the face of the ideals of liberty, so I oppose them. Were he a U.S. citizen, Maduro would be fully, legally entitled to his expressions, as I would be equally to rebuke them.

* This specific story is common in headlines from sources such as Sputnik, Tass, RT, and others known to be sympathetic to socialist and communist regimes. I won’t click on a TASS, RT or Sputnik link, or any other state-controlled media like Xinhua or People’s Daily, nor offer one to you, in case it delivers malware or trackers. I recommend you avoid them too if digging further into this specific story. But I have read of Maduro’s quotes elsewhere.

* Critical thought is…critical! It starts not with the story, but the source. One question I often ask is, “Why is this medium pushing this story?” From the outside looking in, it’s pretty easy to see (for example) TASS or Al Jazeera selectively publicizing this for propagandistic manipulation. Those or Xinhua aren’t alone, mind you; most modern media, including right here in the USA, have descended into this practice. I grew up in the inner city and learned to watch or shield my back habitually. Unfortunately, we now have to do so mentally with media stories.

* On the face, and taken alone in a rigidly impermeable silo with no context at all, he makes a compelling point. After all, what good comes from burning another religion’s good book, even if you don’t agree with it? However, as I often say, “Consider the source.” Maduro, like many famous populist leaders selectively wielding their stated faith for rhetorical leverage, acts purer than he is, in terms of living it out. [This reminds me of bible-holding Trump for one evening with his military accompaniment to the DC church, or Biden and Pelosi supporting mass abortion while claiming the mantle of Catholicism for the sake of public show. Using their good books as publicity devices without living by them!] The thoroughly devastating results of Maduro’s and his beloved mentor/predecessor’s programs in Venezuela bear it out. He ought to take the plank out of his own eye before dealing with the speck in another’s. That’s Biblical. Live it more than talk it.

* He criticized Koran burning by “racist sectors”. What didn’t he say? For one, that the public Koran burning was done by a native Iraqi, Salwan Momika, who immigrated to Sweden. Hardly “racism”! The burner has been labeled Christian but described himself on social media as “atheist and enlightened politician, thinker and author”.

* Maduro allied with Iran for economic reasons. He is pandering to extreme Muslims here. I doubt that’s coincidental. I wonder when Maduro will discuss the modern torture, summary executions and vigilante-style killings of hostages, “apostates” and “heretics” in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, or throwing homosexuals off buildings in Iraq, Syria and Libya, or the gang rape, torture and murder of Christians in parts of North Africa. Considering his regime’s own brutalization of dissidents, I won’t hold my breath waiting.

* Maduro the “Christian”…his being one of the most notorious human-rights abusers around today, with his Helicoide political prison and “The Tomb” torture center, it’s an understatement to say his actions make me skeptical about his alleged “Christianity”. Still, only God can judge for sure. Nobody is perfect. All sin. All will have to answer for themselves at Judgment Day. “All” includes me. And yes, we’re all created different but equal in God’s eye. God loves Nicolas Maduro and wishes to grant him salvation and forgiveness, even as evil as his practices have been. The same can be said for each of us, and anyone engaging in behavior you or I (or even God Himself) don’t approve of. That’s Biblical.

* With those due caveats stated: Still, in a pragmatic sense, the errors and sins of people in positions of high power have greater consequences for society as a whole than those of the average guy waiting on the corner of Commerce and Akard for a bus home. Therefore, the powerful should be held to expectations commensurate with their positions and influence, and yes, that means higher performance standards than you or me. It’s their intrinsic duty to live up to a loftier standard for what they do and say than the downtown bus passenger, by virtue of far vaster consequences. With greater power comes greater responsibility.

* His results at home belie his preaching about yahoos burning Korans somewhere thousands of miles away, an item totally irrelevant to his duties. It strikes me as a purposeful distraction tactic as well as pandering. He’s misguided, but not stupid…kill two birds with one stone (or statement, in this case).

Other critical thoughts certainly are possible, but those are some immediate examples, arising from just one little story that the great majority of Americans will miss completely.

Example of Leftist Anti-Freedom Tactics

by Leave a Comment

The First Amendment does not say “except” or “unless”. In fact it exists specifically to protect peaceful assembly and controversial and offensive speech from governmental intrusion.

After school, on a public (key word there, public) sidewalk next to the Downington STEM Academy in PA, Christian teen siblings Lauren and Connor Haines held signs protesting abortion, including one with a picture of a dead aborted baby, while peacefully discussing the issue with passersby. Their assistant principal Dr. Zach Ruff came out harassing, threatening and cussing them, while using his large girth to stand in front and impede viewing of their message.

The school authority’s message: “You can go to hell where they are, too. They’re not children. They’re cells. … I’m as gay as the day is long and twice as sunny. I don’t give a f*** what Jesus tells me about what I should and should not be doing. … You do not have my permission to speak and engage. You are harassing public school students, and I will call the police if you don’t shut up.”

Full 18-minute video:

During his assault on the First Amendment, the self-described “twice as sunny” principal (under PA law) assaulted Connor too, by getting within inches of his face and trying to rip a sign from him. That’s not all. Following the assistant principal’s pathetic example of bullying and threats, other students and parents (!) engaged in mob-scale harassment by sending Connor, Lauren and their families hundreds of messages, some profane.

These are the tactics of oppressors and anti-freedom mobs, folks: herd-mentality threats, intimidation, and authoritarian bullying.

Fortunately, this time, by eliciting legal aid from legal-defense nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (one I am proud to support tangibly), the good guys courageously prevailed over hateful authoritarian bullies. Ultimately the school had to apologize and acknowledge the violated First Amendment freedoms of Lauren and Connor, the vice principal was suspended, then resigned, and Lauren and Connor are free as they should be to exercise their free-expressive rights on public property.

Unfortunately it doesn’t end there. This is but a microcosm of public-school and college incidents of First Amendment violation all across the nation, hundreds of them and adding up yearly. With his PhD and “educational” background, Ruff very well could get a job elsewhere around students, where the same bigoted anti-Christian bullying can begin anew. And he’s far, far, far from the only one with that mentality. Protectors of freedom must be vigilant and call out the destroyers of freedom at every turn in this era of hate and intolerance of peaceful dissent.

You see, freedom is our greatest earthly gift and is God-ordained. Support and protect it, even when people freely express things that bother or offend you. No question, I wholly endorse and approve of Connor and Lauren’s message, and defend their right to say it. Even as an open and unapologetic social and fiscal conservative, I also am a governmental libertarian to the core, and defend the right of those peacefully expressing messages I don’t approve, to do so in the public arena…yes, even left-wing messages! Freedom is for all, not just liberals, conservatives or “moderates” (whatever that is…seems everybody from far left to far right thinks he/she is a moderate). This includes artistic freedom from the vicious viceroys of political correctness.

I fully am using my freedom of expression to post this…and folks, it has been happening for decades and is not going to stop. I have my ideals, opinions, and biases as well. I absolutely do preferentially post instances of left-wing violations of freedom, in large part to counter the intense bias of most mass media against the right, and against Christians. So be it. As long as I breathe, and as long as the left violates others’ rights (anymore, a given) there’s plenty more where this came from. Deal with it.

Don’t like my expressions of free speech, or others’? Ignore it, or argue non-violently. Don’t weaponize authority to squash others’ God-given and Constitutionally codified right to free expression! If you do, expect a well-earned backlash in support of freedom, and expect to lose — ideologically for starters, and in court if necessary.

Want to fight ideas you disapprove? Use facts, reason, logic, and levelheaded, rational counter-argument. Never threats, intimidation, bullying, or violence! And yes, that applies from the President (hardly a role model here) right on down to some spiteful vice principal, and ultimately, you and me.