Matt Kibbe: Socialism Kills

[Brian4Liberty]

Matt Kibbe: Socialism Kills

[timosman]

This time it is going to be different.

[Brian4Liberty]

This time it is going to be different.

Utopia is almost here!


/s

[Danke]

Yeah but not democratic socialism.

[Matt Collins]

Why doesn't he mention Hitler?

[Danke]

Why doesn't he mention Hitler?

Ask him, don't you have him on speed dial? Or Facebook?

[Tywysog Cymru]

Socialists will claim that real socialism has never been tried. Of course, they never claimed that when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was showing the world how socialism works.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

So lets talk about this.

"Democratic Socialists" will say that dictatorial socialism, like Mao, Fidel, Lenin, Stalin ect is completely irrelevant to what they want to do. No one dies or is mass murdered if the revolution is at the voting booths, using existing bureaucracy. A peaceful revolution instead of a bloody one. Very similar to our own aspirations of restoring the republic, without having to fight a revolutionary war.

So, why does it matter what was done in the past, if that isn't what they are planning for the future, is it not a fallacy to attempt to equate Mao to Sanders?

How would you respond to that?

[Brian4Liberty]

Why doesn't he mention Hitler?

While both Hitler and Stalin would be considered totalitarian authoritarians, they were opposing philosophies. The great battle of Europe, fascists vs. communists.

[Brian4Liberty]

So lets talk about this.

"Democratic Socialists" will say that dictatorial socialism, like Mao, Fidel, Lenin, Stalin ect is completely irrelevant to what they want to do. No one dies or is mass murdered if the revolution is at the voting booths, using existing bureaucracy. A peaceful revolution instead of a bloody one. Very similar to our own aspirations of restoring the republic, without having to fight a revolutionary war.

So, why does it matter what was done in the past, if that isn't what they are planning for the future, is it not a fallacy to attempt to equate Mao to Sanders?

How would you respond to that?

The final destination is still the same. They want a system with no opt-out, no dissent, no individual liberty.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

The final destination is still the same. They want a system with no opt-out, no dissent, no individual liberty.

Totally agree....but they do not value Liberty in the same way that they do Life. So to them, the Liberty argument is a red herring. The question is, will Bernie turn into Pol Pot?

I personally do not think Democratic Socialism will lead to 20th century style mass killings, but the complete destruction of liberty (which is just as heinous)....which would make Kibbes point completely irrelevant.

[TheTexan]

Socialists will claim that real socialism has never been tried. Of course, they never claimed that when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was showing the world how socialism works.

I dunno, the USSR worked pretty good for a while

[Brian4Liberty]

Totally agree....but they do not value Liberty in the same way that they do Life. So to them, the Liberty argument is a red herring. The question is, will Bernie turn into Pol Pot?

I personally do not think Democratic Socialism will lead to 20th century style mass killings, but the complete destruction of liberty (which is just as heinous)....which would make Kibbes point completely irrelevant.

It has the potential, mainly due to it's requirement for 100% participation and intolerance for opposing opinions. Not necessarily Bernie, but someone further down the line. First there was Marx, then Lenin, then Stalin. Our prisons are already full, and they have barely begun with political and thought crimes. The number of people who would eventually be declared criminal necessitates massive death. Not enough resources to keep all dissenters locked up.

[Todd]

So lets talk about this.

"Democratic Socialists" will say that dictatorial socialism, like Mao, Fidel, Lenin, Stalin ect is completely irrelevant to what they want to do. No one dies or is mass murdered if the revolution is at the voting booths, using existing bureaucracy. A peaceful revolution instead of a bloody one. Very similar to our own aspirations of restoring the republic, without having to fight a revolutionary war.

So, why does it matter what was done in the past, if that isn't what they are planning for the future, is it not a fallacy to attempt to equate Mao to Sanders?

How would you respond to that?

Yep. Everywhere you suggest this, the one's who defend it point to Canada and Europe as how it all works and no one gets sent to death camps.

[Matt Collins]

While both Hitler and Stalin would be considered totalitarian authoritarians, they were opposing philosophies. The great battle of Europe, fascists vs. communists.

Um no... Russia was communism and Germany was socialism. Do you even know what the word "NaZi" means?

[Brian4Liberty]

Um no... Russia was communism and Germany was socialism. Do you even know what the word "NaZi" means?

Wow, never knew that the word Nazi had any meaning.

Perhaps you can enlighten us all with the nuances of Nazi and Soviet politics? How did the German Workers' Party (sounds communist) end up with Socialism in their name? If you could compare and contrast the systems of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany for us, it would be helpful to those of us with less knowledge. Thanks.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

To be fair, Communism has never been tried. But Socialism and Fascism has.

We Americans have convinced ourselves that the USSR was communist, but talk to people who lived in the USSR, and they will tell you, though they were taught to aspire communism, they all knew of themselves as Socialists.

The key difference is government control versus anarchic control.

Fascism (National Socialism) hated Communism because it is "Global" rather than "National". This is exactly how Hitler tied Jews up in all of this. Jews were seen as a globalist, stateless cartel, unconcerned and even conspiring against the State and European peoples. The Bolshevik Revolution, with a disproportionate amount of ethnic Jews (those atheist in religion) were at the helm, overthrowing the Czar, and we're seen as seizing the country from the Slavic People (who they considered to be lessor, unsophisticated, ape like people).

The National Socialists were a "3rd way", mixing capitalist and socialist policies, allowing for State-Corperate collusion, as well as Corporatism in the government (meaning state entrenchment into all aspects of life, forcing accountability from all citizens on the affairs of each other).

The Socialists and the National Socialists hated each other throughly.

Now, neither require a hard tyranny to operate. Soft tyranny, using democratic controls, and using propaganda to cover up the evils of Authoritarianism, the sheeple actually enjoy being controlled ....because they don't know any better.

In the end, it doesn't matter if we turn to democratic Socialism with Bernie, or Democratic fascism with Trump....liberty will be crushed under the boot of the state in less than a year.

[heavenlyboy34]

Um no... Russia was communism and Germany was socialism. Do you even know what the word "NaZi" means?

Do you know what the second S in USSR stands for? Plz read Mises' "Socialism". He explains Russian and German socialism-and lots more.

[Brian4Liberty]

The National Socialists were a "3rd way", mixing capitalist and socialist policies, allowing for State-Corperate collusion, as well as Corporatism in the government (meaning state entrenchment into all aspects of life, forcing accountability from all citizens on the affairs of each other).

The Socialists and the National Socialists hated each other throughly.

It's been a long time since I read the commie manifesto, but my take was always that socialism was a sales pitch to prevent people from going communist. Marx and friends had no love for those who dabbled in socialism as a sales pitch to pacify the unwashed masses. It seems that the monarchists (later Oligarchs) of Europe were the ones that pushed socialism to prevent their own overthrow.

IIRC, when Hitler and friends adopted the "socialism" label, it was once again a sales pitch to bring in support from socialists for the eventual Nazi takeover. Now they did do some things that would be considered socialist today, for example, their form of social security (retirement). And they loved central planning. Everything had to be controlled by the central, one party government. Can't find the exact quote, but IIRC, Hitler said something to the effect that words like socialist were changed in meaning (by him), and his National Socialism meant National Society more than socialism. One thing he was correct about is that the meaning of words can change dramatically over time and in different places.

[Henry Rogue]

Totally agree....but they do not value Liberty in the same way that they do Life. So to them, the Liberty argument is a red herring. The question is, will Bernie turn into Pol Pot?

I personally do not think Democratic Socialism will lead to 20th century style mass killings, but the complete destruction of liberty (which is just as heinous)....which would make Kibbes point completely irrelevant.

Some one around here, can't remember who, has a quote from B4L in his or her signature. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions, no need to make it a superhighway." Although I don't consider redistribution and loss of freedom as good intentions.

[robert68]

65 million dead is as supportable as 200 million dead. When it involves Lenin and Stalin any number flies with some people.

[Ray Rainer]

When Matt says Socialism kills, he is talking about Marxist, Maoist Communism which I agree. imperialism killed a lot of people too and it is just about taking. There was no ideal there. I would venture to say that most ideologies are dangerous, particularly those of an undemocratic and dictatorial type. Socialism, in and by itself, doesn't mean anything. It is certainly not any Utopian dream like Marxist ideas of creating a perfect world.
It has to be defined because it just a broad term. Marx used it as mean to his end, in the same way Hitler did. They both defined it in terms of their goals. Do people realize that Israel is a Socialist country, along with Japan, Germany, Finland, Denmark? But they are each different with their own rules and needs where the governments steps in to fulfill certain needs like health care or whatever, rather than letting people die in the streets like the good ole days.
The problem with the "Free Market" idea is that it doesn't exist and never has existed. There is no free market and there will never be one because there is no such game in this town. All games have rules and regulations of what you can and can't do. We have the Constitution with it's limits.It is after all designed for "We the people to create a more perfect union".
It seems to me that one of the problems, let's say with the American auto industry, is they are at an unfair advantage with Japan because they provide health care to everyone. They also are heavily subsidized. So how can there ever be a "free market" when all countries involved have varying degrees of government involvement.
Socialism is too big of a word. It is too encompassing. It is just something where the government steps in in vary degrees more or less. It may be more or less intrusive. So to equal things out, the government may have to step in. The GW Bush administration was facing a total collapse of this country. Pretty amazing isn't it? Particularly for all those smart wall street Bankers who so much believe in "Capitalism". But when the time came, they weren't any different than that down and out guy on the street who needed a handout.
Be leery of people with "ideals". They are sure to fail.

[Brian4Liberty]

Are Socialism and Fascism the Same Thing?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Are Socialism and Fascism the Same Thing?

Fascism is not far right.

[Danke]

Poor guy has to film in an alley.

[AZJoe]

[brushfire]

Kibbe really grew them muttons out.