Sunday, August 26, 2018

GEM FROM MARK LEVIN: What is Socialism Taken to its Logical Extreme?

Based upon commentary from Mark Levin, August 24, 2018

Socialism taken to its logical extreme is tyrannical totalitarianism. There is simply no counter-argument to this point. History suffers from no shortage of warnings, among them the Soviet Union, Cuba, Mao’s Red China, Nazi Germany, and many, many others.

Progressives and other crypto-Marxists will always dismiss the outright failures (see: Venezuela) and instead ask, “What about Denmark? What about Sweden?”

The answer, put simply and -- as even the country of Denmark’s Prime Minister has pointed out -- is that:

...some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy… with [as] much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

Contrast the repeated failures of socialism with the history of capitalism.

Capitalism taken to its logical extreme is capitalism; private property rights taken to their logical extreme are private property rights.

Capitalism respects human nature; the desire of most to work hard within the confines of a civil society, thereby achieving personal, professional, financial or any other form of success that they themselves value.
Socialism rejects human nature. It attempts to replace the goals and aspirations of the individual with the forced mandate of a collective. Shared property, the seizure and redistribution of assets, and guaranteed “fairness” of outcome -- no matter how ludicrous -- are all hallmarks of a socialist society.

That is why socialism, Marxism, and its murderous brethren always seize the reins of industry. The inevitable result is that in an elite few -- not “the proletariat”, not the “masses” -- control government-run monopolies.

Of course, these monopolies, without exception, become inefficient, dysfunctional, and faceless bureaucracies focused on retaining their exclusive control of some aspect of society, but certainly not on pleasing (or even serving) customers.

As they are not subject to competition, monopolies have no incentive to operate efficiently, either from a financial or an effectiveness point-of-view. Prized jobs in socialist societies are government sinecures wedged inside these monoliths. This class of jobs is incredibly desirable because they represent permanent employment. No one is ever fired from the government monopoly due to poor performance, cruelty or even criminality.

Challenge socialists on this single point: What is their endgame?

When is enough government control enough? Why won’t socialists -- or Democrat Socialists -- share their blueprint for society? What industry is a “bridge too far” for socialism? Why can’t they tell us what their limits are on taxation, control of industry, and how much of society should be dependent upon their handouts?

Conservatives know their endgame: it is called the United States Constitution. These four pages of wisdom, condensed instructions gleaned from thousands of years of human experience, ended up germinating the most magnificent nation-state yet to arise from humanity’s tumult.

And a great percentage of our fellow citizens neither recognize nor appreciate the magnificent society with which they have been bequeathed. They take for granted this unique and precious anomaly in the context of human history.

Only education can help them. Not all of them, to be sure, but many: those who possess both open minds and a willingness to learn.

Let us all endeavor to help educate the wayward and lead them to the path of enlightenment.

See more at MarkLevinShow.com.

18 comments:

Chris Burke said...

SOunds like he is referring to Big Tech.

Garbo630 said...

I thank God Almighty everyday for the gift of Mark Levin to our country!

Unknown said...

Socialism simply put is control everyone's money,control everyone.

Chad said...

So well said Mark Levin. Socialism taken to the extreme is commmunism and its completely evil. Some leftists are very hesitant and reluctant to admit that communism and is the twin evil or equally evil to Nazism because they say the end goals are different. But it’s complete bogus. Both ideologies require a totalitarian government that uses coehesion and violence to accomplish its ends. Any dissenters are silenced or killed. To accomplish total socialism (communism) the State would need to overthrow and kill all property owners and capitalists. How is that not considered evil? What about that is “peaceful” and “utopian”? What about this resembles anything close to “human rights”? The Nordic countries aren’t even truly socialist. They are just market based economies with a welfare state attached to them. Like the President of Denmark stated.

Plus Karl Marx, the co author of the Communist Manifesto was a self hating Jew and hated Jews just as much as Hitler. As a Jew myself, 26 years old, but conservative and capitalist or free market minded, I regret that so many Jews are still so Left in their politics despite historically speaking the oldest form of anti semitism is based on anti capitalist or anti free market thinking. Even many Jews who aren’t communists or self described socialists but are to the Left in their politics find it difficult to label total socialism (communism) as its equally evil twin because in “theory” it’s supposed to have “good intentions”.

Whoopie said...

You can't educate the willfully ignorant. Thanks to Trump the Democrat Party has shown us what they truly stand for and it's nothing that resembles the America we knew. Anyone who still votes for a Democrat does so out of spiteful malice toward his fellow citizens and should be treated accordingly.

Chad said...

With that said I think it’s safe to also say that completely unfettered capitalism isn’t ideal either. You want there to be some regulations as what is deemed appropriate, reasonable and necessary. But you want the regulations (such as understandable environmental ones or those related to public safety) to have their specific function and purpose, and not to be overbearing to the point that they impact small business activity or the economy as a whole. Obviously the government can help maintain infrastructure because that is vital to the economy and public safety and as long as the money isn’t being misappropriated. And I’m not against the local and state governments taking charge either of those funds since they know what needs fixing. But other than those duties (infrastructure, public safety, protecting the environment- clean air and water, without depriving ourselves or being overly “environmentalistic” or “green”, national security- protecting our borders, and making sure trade policy is fair and balanced), there isn’t much else the federal government should be in the business of. It needs to have designated and specific functions so that it’s easier to check if it’s becoming too big. Clear and simple.

Chad said...

We can add to that list enforcing (to whatever extent) private contracts

Unknown said...

AMEN

Unknown said...

Socialism is hubris, elite-control, but pure pragmatism, because the socialists do not operate on moral principle, and they have to keep experimenting because their programs do not work and violate human nature. The problem: Both freedom loving individuals and their minions are left with the carnage.

glsxoomer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

So do I!

Letters to the Sixth Generation are... said...

Chad, this is naïve. The only regulation that is required is already expounded within the Constitution. The issues you note can be and are addressed by the consumer. If a business is conducted contrary to your beliefs regarding environmental or other concerns, simply refuse to support that business. If your concerns are valid, there will be sufficient numbers of consumers who share your beliefs to either force the business to change its methodology, or it will go out of business. The Free Market is self regulating and automatically addresses the issues you present. We DO NOT need governmental regulation. Only governmental protection against fraud and theft. Please do additional research: "The Mainspring of Human Progress" - "Economics in One Lesson" and many other similar publications.

Stephen J Carter said...

He has a way of cutting through the obfuscation and fuzzy logic, very similar to Milton Friedman. Common sense wrapped in eloquence.

smitty said...

SO TRUE

Chad said...

Letters to the Sixth Generation, let me reinstate that I am a free marketer in general and I believe in limited government. Though, I also do not believe in being an ideologue- meaning supporting zero or near zero regulation. The regulation im referring in regards to the environment is simply for the intent of preserving and safeguarding it, BUT not to the detriment of business activity and productivity which I specified in my other posting. Such as those corporations responsible for current industrial production. It is more difficult to accomplish this when it comes to some monopolies who have significant control and influence in their industry and don’t have to face competition that would naturally put check on any potential harmful or risky practices. I definitely dislike government monopolies, but I also don’t prefer private ones either.

Anyways I do believe in the free marketplace and competition that gives consumers numerous options and that should be obvious at this point. And I don’t think having some reasonable and limited regulation here and there without being excessive and overintruding contradicts my support of the free marketplace and competition. I’m just saying that there shouldn’t be zero regulation, just limited and reasonable ones, and that does not contradict free market competition overall. And just out of curiosity who in the free marketplace is going to be responsible for national security? Even Adam Smith believed that one of the most important designated functions of government is the defense and security of its citizens in addition to enforcing private contracts. That includes immigration and being able to control who you allow into and out of your country. Immigration law changes over time in relation to the changing international environment and international events. 9/11 attacks, the drug cartels and child traffickers, individuals who have large criminal rap sheets, terrorists, etc. Many of these examples were not of concern 50 or especially 100 or 200 years ago because threats change over the course of time and they become more advanced. This implies that in the name of defending and protecting your citizenry from these developing global threats you must “regulate” by securing and protecting your borders. Countries are defined by their borders, and without enforcing or protecting those borders from illegal activities or dangerous people you might as well have anarchy and no country at all.

Chad said...

And I greatly admire the fact that Pres. Trump on at least the domestic economic front has eliminated more economic regulations on business than just about any other Pres before him in modern times and our GDP growth is at record levels. Idealistically I wish we could have a flat tax because that would greatly simply the tax code but it’s too idealistic. I hope the tariffs he’s threatened are only short term and just a matter of necessity since I’m afraid too much tariffs will hurt us like they did after Pres Hoover passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs right before the brink of the Great Depression. This is my biggest concern on the economic front and I hope Trump as a former international businessman who’s benefited from trade knows what his end game is or what he’s doing and maybe the tariffs are short term. That is my only regret about his economic policies. I believe strongly in free trade as long as it’s fair to the individual nations involved and not to some international organization seeking to take autonomy away. I hope Trump doesn’t take things too far.

Chad said...

The socialists do operate on moral principle, it’s just their definition of what’s moral and right runs counter with to everything we know that permits society and the economy to move forward. Far left progrsssives aren’t even “progressive” by their own definition. The term itself implies progress and improvement and making society better. There is nothing just about making everyone economically equal or close to equal because then there’s no point of going to work everyday. Open borders is crazy because then you have no country and countries are defined by their borders. Putting illegal immigrants, especially those with rap sheets above those of law abiding American citizens is the opposite of “progressive”. What about all the immigrants who came here the right way? Why should anyone come here legally anymore (via California) if they can just get amnesty and citizenship by coming here illegally. There is nothing in any of this that can be called “progress” for those so-called progressives. Seizing small businesses and taking away all their life’s work and savings: the OPPOSITE of PROGRESS. Criminalizing or making illegal private property: again the OPPOSITE of PROGRESS and LIBERAL.

Chad said...

I actually believe that true liberalism is the polar opposite of collectivism and socialism. The classical liberalism of the 19th century and Edmund Burke. Milton Friedman even referred to himself as a liberal in the sense of believing in classical liberal economics and not the modern far left definition of what liberal means. Lots about classical liberalism has much in common with modern day conservatism.