Socialism Explained

Socialism Explained

This was posted in the comments section in a Daily Barclaygraph article back in 2013 (by “Tayles”). Can’t think of anything to add, quite frankly 🙂

“There is a great moral evil at the heart of the socialist vision. It declares that a fairer, happier society can be achieved if the entire nation is conscripted into a great collective effort, the fruits of which are allocated according to individual need, rather than individual achievement.

Setting aside its obvious fallaciousness, this vision offers no voluntary participation. It does not ask whether you wish to join this great endeavour – whether you’d rather take your chances and test your own abilities, rather than accepting your share of the collective effort. It demands that everyone set aside their personal preferences and give themselves over to the cause.

This assumes that individuals are not sovereign beings. Instead, they are the property of the state. Their ambitions, abilities and efforts can only be used in its service for the benefit of the rest of society.

I consider this a fundamentally immoral attitude, but lefties just shrug. They can’t see the problem. The sanctity of individual freedom just doesn’t register with them as mattering. They normally trot out some trite comment about how people are born into a society to which they already owe a debt, and which continues to help them throughout their lives, and for this reason they have no right to consider their life to be truly their own.

But any society that provides an infrastructure that benefits future generations, then uses it as a stick to beat them, is a tyranny – as is a society that demands anything more than a small amount of tax to maintain that infrastructure during a person’s working life. Payment of tax is not voluntary and most government policy is not subject to individual consent. To coerce money from people, to spend it on things without their consent, and then to blackmail them into giving up their liberties in exchange is not liberal democracy – it’s a protection racket.

If people want to give to charity, and to support their friends and neighbours, then that’s fine and admirable. If they want to organise voluntary organisations to help others or pay extra tax to the government to fund benevolent causes, then that’s fine too. As long as it’s their money and their choice. The moment they start demanding other people’s money without their consent, they cross the line.

If you disagree, if you think that everyone should be forced to pay towards causes you consider worthy, then at least have the balls to admit that you are no friend of freedom. You are a fascist, pure and simple”.


Published by

7 thoughts on “Socialism Explained”

  1. Some comments are genuinely inspired. I do find that those who believe in capitalism make quite as many mistakes – albeit that these mistakes are those that make the man a capitalist. With the other mistakes, they become a socialist…

    Whatever work a person does, be it for a so-called state-owned corporation or a Japanese motor manufacturer, the person doing the work is paid for what they create. In a microcosm of the family business, the worker has to ‘make a profit’ on the things they produce. Why else keep someone on? If they’re losing you money… as so many dull witted desk jockeys do… it all comes down to whether anybody is taking any notice!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. That goes for the state owned company just as much as it does any other. State owned companies cannot keep on making a loss on their workers for ever; it will eventually catch up with them in the way it did in the DDR in the late 80s.

    It has caught up with America, too. Only they can print money to pay the interest on their debts – which as a macrocosm of a family business, is for that business to be in need of receivership.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Life – and business – are relatively simple. It’s only made complex when the Marxist says that accountants have no real value in the world, and the Capitalist says that he’d rather have a machine than bother with more ‘operatives’.

    As a manager at the Cowley works told me on a uni visit, “robots don’t buy cars, do they?”

    There is a balance, but it’s not between capitalism and socialism…

    [Apols, the numpties at WordPress must have flagged my account. It’s what they think is good for business… ]

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Agree with much of what you say Gemma; it’s just the coercion that irritates me. There is no space for anyone who may disagree and want to live their lives differently. But then I am an admittedly grumpy, contrarian old sod 🙂

    Anyway, all UK governments have been socialist since 1948!


  5. You’re not suggesting that the Americans allowed Britain to have a left wing government, do you?

    The last time there was even a hint of socialism was in the late 60s and the Americans wheeled in the IMF along with some faked up figures – and the result was Britain had a sales tax of 33%. Only when the figures were audited did it transpire that Jenkins’ (Wilson’s chancellor?) figures were actually correct and the Americans had effectively derailed a socialist government.

    It has to be stressed that the Americans did not coerce the British government in any way. They just made sure the British had no choice.

    It’s how to interfere with out actually, well, getting your hands dirty. The result is the same…


  6. I think you go to far here, some things are best done as a collective and some things by individual effort, that’s called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A big mistake in my opinion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s