Thursday, June 07, 2012


Obama, who was raised by socialists and influenced by their socialist friends and sought out Marxist professors, worked for the extremely socialist leaning ACORN, and appeared as a speaker sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America, but is nonetheless, as everyone knows, NOT a socialist ... and if you say he is you're a crackpot conspiracy theorist, also sought the endorsement and joined the [socialist] New Party, yet not only denied it later and actually had people smear anyone who suggested that he had, ironically, as a smear-er.

I was out commenting on a post of Morgan's on HKB, and as often happens when I'm commenting on something Morgan brought up, it turns out I have something to say.  It had to do with this thoughtful story, and the side issue of why it doesn't so much matter to me whether Obama is a Socialist or a Fascist.

 The main difference between fascism and socialism is the degree of ownership the government has over the means of production. With fascism, it's "yeah, well you technically own it, but we get to tell you what you can do with it and how much of the proceeds you can keep". Which isn't quite as ownershippy as a free market system, which is what we have. Not that some government regulation is needed in a free market system ... but the regulation should have more to do with protecting others' property rights -- whether it be public property (air, streams, water, national parks) rather than how much of your profit those with their paws on the levers of power get to swipe to buy friends and influence and yachts they keep in states with lower property tax rates ... for instance ;-)   ... or others' private property (no swindling people, and honor your contracts) and the like.

I've said somewhere before that capitalism isn't a system, per se. Not a consciously designed one, anyway. It just falls naturally out of human nature. These other "isms" are attempts at changing what humans are, and they run contrary to our nature. Our inner nature will act as a resistor to their imposed currents, and we'll heat up like light bulb filaments and burn out. Every. Time. They're just too opposed to what we are, which is imperfect, fallible creatures who, like all other creatures will work to make things better and easier on ourselves given the opportunity.

Capitalism uses the force of the stream and natural law channels it constructively. The other "isms" say "to hell with this stream, it causes erosion and floods" and they attempt to replace it with an ugly pipe which isn't worth flowing through. Then eventually the pipe strains under natural pressures and starts to spray water out every which way, and then it bursts. See Greece. Spain. Wiemar... and hopefully not coming soon to a theater near you.


Severian said...

I've said somewhere before that capitalism isn't a system, per se. Not a consciously designed one, anyway. It just falls naturally out of human nature.

Exactly. To even use the word "capitalism" shows how much ground we've ceded to Marxoids (though Marx himself did not coin the term).

"Capitalism" has marginal utility as a descriptor... but only as against planned systems. (In other words: "I don't like Socialism, I'd prefer... whatever it is we have now"). But Marxists, being Marxists, immediately seized upon the word "capitalism" and -- again, being Marxists -- assumed that "capitalism" was an organized thing, with parties and slogans and gulags, the way "Socialism" is a thing.

They assume that "Capitalists" -- Mitt Romney, the Koch Brothers, etc. -- get together in big meetings and plan out ways to keep control of the means of production, oppress the peasantry, maximize profits, etc.... because that's what Socialists do.

They assume there are ranks and badges and uniforms and party slogans and meeting minutes and training camps and summer schools and propaganda divisions and internal police forces for "Capitalism," because that's what Socialists have.

If it's not expressible in the terms of a creepy mass movement, in other words -- intellectual content formulated by a vanguard to whom the rules don't apply, training and discipline enforced by cadres, useful idiots recruited by footsoldiers -- they don't understand it. Hence all the weird things attributed to "Capitalism" by leftists like Our Glorious Leader, Pharaoh Three-Putt. They still think it's 1889 and they're out to bust up the Standard Oil Trust.

At some point, it might actually be in the interests of the right to come up with a programmatic expression of views -- of doctrine, if you will. An "-ism" of our own. "Conservatism" doesn't cut it, nor really does "libertarianism" (weeed, dude.... weeeeeeeeed!), but something might. The Tea Party could do worse than to get a few party intellectuals.....

philmon said...

I'm reading Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit". Dovetails nicely into our outlook.

Got it as a pdf off the innerwebs with a google search and I'm reading it on the Nook.

Severian said...

I grabbed that a year or so back. I need to give it another skim. Hayek's pretty much right about everything, of course, but....

1) he's not exactly a gripping stylist, and

2) nobody will be convinced of "the errors of socialism" merely by pointing out the errors of socialism. As David Hume said of some obscure point of theology, socialism is a doctrine "so absurd, it eludes all force of reason." Leftism is fundamentally an attitude -- "we wuz robbed!!" applied to every aspect of life. An analogous movement on the right would need to come up with that kind of slogan-ish appeal -- something like "don't you feel better when you pull up your pants, turn your hat brim back forward, do your homework, and actually accomplish something?"

But, you know, catchier.

philmon said...

The first one or two chapters were exceedingly dull. But it either got better (probably) or it's possible that I became numbed to the dull style and was able to get past it and pull out what he was saying.

And naturally Hayek's not going to convince me of "the errors of socialism" ... I'm convinced, partly from some of the very things he talks about in the book -- and that is, evolved cultural artifacts that have been embedded in me all of my life.

Many of my Tea Party friends know it is in error, but they can't articulate why. This is ok ... that's what culture is for. Good culture, anyway. But, the Alinskiites take advantage of this by providing "explanations" of why it's cool, and why your "ism" is bad ... and since they've typically been the only ones in the room with an "explanation", others in the room listening, and perhaps even the person who knows it's in error but can't say why, decide they need to go with the "smart" guy. And so it's been for around 100 years (and increasingly in the last 60), even in our country.

You mentioned that the Tea Party could do worse than to get a few party intellectuals. The truth is, we have them, but the MSM refuses to recognize them as such. And on top of that, what it really needs is guys like you and me who want to understand and are willing to join and help others understand.

Because what we really need is more people making the case for our side of the argument so the Alinskyites are no longer the only ones in the room making a case at all while everyone else is silent in the name of politeness (which is one thing they're taking advantage of). It's not so much that you're going to convince the guy who's convinced that there's no error to socialism ... it's more about getting in the way of him convincing other people that he's right.

That's one of the things this post> is about.

I should be more blatant about what I'm saying here.

The Tea Party could use more people like ... YOU, my friend.

I was sorry to see your blog go.

Severian said...

Good points all.

Yeah, I'm sorry to see my blog go, too. But alas, the openminded, tolerant leftists in social milieu made it a bit too stressful.

Anonymous said...

Sev, you can co-blog with me any time, if you get the itch back. Your first comment here is a better example of the Mirror Principle than I've ever managed to cook up in eight years online.

(Mirror Principle - the thing the left is always accusing you of is either the thing they're doing themselves, or else the thing they would do in your position.)

philmon said...

Will you turn your radio down? Respect the 7 second delay we use. ;-)

I just signed up to get your blog posts by email, Lester.

Severian said...

Thanks, fellas.