A Donut Without a Hole is not a Donut, its a Danish

From atop the Stoa this day, I have to say; some of the best things Chevy Chase ever said were written by other people.

France has elected what they like to call, a Sensible Socialist. A National Progressive Socialist who will "do it right, this time".

Riiiiiiiiiiiggghhhht.

So how is this "new" Socialist going to do things differently? Well, he is going to do this:
1. Raise taxes on everyone earning more than one million Euros
2. Raise taxes on corporations and industries that he feels don't pay their fair share
3. He is going to pass programs to "equalize" the distribution of wealth in the nation
4. He is going to subsidize or outright make education a "free right"
5. He is going to heavily regulate the banking and insurance industry
6. He is going to re-write the import and tax tariffs on goods and services
....

So how does this differ from "old" Socialism? Some say, "he'll do it right, this time". How can you take money from one person and give it to another any differently than in the past? Two methods: threat of the gun, and/or threat of prison.

Someone would also need to tell me how the Socialist's policies in France differ in any way with those policies pushed and crammed by Obama?

I'm waiting...

So, a donut without a hole is not a donut, but a danish.
Fabians, Progressives, New Democrats, Communists, New Dealers, New Society, and Modern Democrats are not "new", their Socialists.

Can this be any clearer?

Class dismissed. Enjoy the wonderful day outside.

Live well.

--Zavost

Socialism, Part Duh

From the Stoa this day, I will look at a few specific ways that Socialism has been translated from theory into practice.

People LOVE theory. Everything is so nice and tidy in the land of theory. Everybody shares and no one tries to take more than they are entitled to take.

Meet reality.

Socialism is supposed to be fairly straight forward. You get paid according to your skill and contribution to society and your needs as an individual...the old "each according to his means, each according to his needs" and all that.

All property is everyones, while at the same time it is really no one's. A small elite, party members all, decided which is what and when and where. Socialism fails because this small elite feel that they are entitled to live a better life than the rest, since the stress and pressure of their jobs is so much more than the common proletariate. No real incentive to give up the luxuries...so FAIL.

Lets remember that in Socialism, all are equal. That means that everyone should have what they need. Maybe not what they want, but they will have food and a place to sleep.

Socialism is loyalty to the State, as embodied by the Party, you know, that small elite making sure that everything runs smoothly. Loyalty to the State means ensuring that the State has its needs met. Human as well as material resources.

In this wonderful place, as you work your way through the educational system, you are routed where the State needs talent and manpower the most.

Think of it this way: an agency looks into the future and feels that goods and services will need to travel by train rather than trucks. You know, the environment and all. So they feel that the number of mechanics and skilled support need to all be increased by 45% over the next 20 years. As children make their way through the educational conveyer belt, they are routed off to schools where they will be turned into the engineers, mechanics, and managers that will staff and control this new train system.

Do you think that all of those children who became the mechanics and engineers really wanted to do those jobs? Irrelevant, really, since it was in the needs of the State and by extension, the People.

In America, our version of Socialism in Education translates into, "No child left behind." This means that the best and brightest will be slowed, or retarted so that the less capable will be given more time to learn. The reality is that schools now teach to rote testing without regard to actual learning. Funding for the schools and all. This fails on multiple levels. Those with talent don't develop that talent, and those that are destined to be ditch diggers waste a lot of time trying to learn things they will never need. No one wants to look little Johnny in the face and tell him that he is not destined for the University. That little Johnny is not smart enough to be a doctor or lawyer. All children have equal potential and all that illogical stuff.

It is sad that the Socialist countries of Europe have a better educational system than ours. One reason is that they run their human resource through a cold calculation. We demand x number of students with y level of education. Well, we have too many students to spend a limited supply of resources upon, so they sort out the best and the brightest from the chaff and chum of society and spend the most resources on them.

This comes from a variety of "cullings" that take place in your educational development. When a child first enters school, their aptitude and basic intelligence is measured. The exceptional artists are taken out and sent to a dedicated academies, such as music, dance, gymnastics, and mathematics. Those that are left continue on until about the 8th grade. From there, they are separated again along intelligence and aptitude scores.

Those that are not college material are shunted towards a trade school. This batch, at this level, is destined to be your line workers. Cars, bottles, road work, you name it, these are the people that will supply the vast manpower needs of the State.

The rest will proceed on a "college prep" path that will again match classes of children to the trade or service needs as projected by the State. When these children turn 18, they will take more tests to determine their paths.

Those under a certain line will go to work in their chosen trades as midlevel managers or more highly trained specialists. Those over a certain line will go on to the University for the best training. Even with these cut offs, there are more students then capacity, or need. So the first two years are meant to weed out the weak. Those unable to take the pressure or the pace are removed and sent back to the trades as mid level managers or specialists.

Those that make it through their University training, become the architects, designers, and executives of the trade organizations and government run companies. They also have been sorted out according to their "politics". Those from "good" families and good politics will become the next generation of party members and State planners.

Has there been any discussion of the student and their "holistic" needs in any of this? Have we even mentioned the "self-actualized" child? No, and you never will. The State does not CARE. There will always be more people than positions. They can afford to take the best and discard the rest. There will always be the need for menial labor. Robots are expensive. People are cheap.

This is the kind of world Obama embraces. This is the kind of world that people who love Theory will eventually inherit, as they don't think things out to their logical conclusions. People are just another resource for the State to manage, much like cattle are managed for meat.

Our schools spend on average of $10,000 or more per student. Socialist nations spend much, much less. With all that money going into our schools, you think the quality of the product would be commensurate. It is not. Not by a long shot.

Places with dirt floors and wooden planks for walls are turning out students of higher quality and better aptitudes then our schools.

What the hell went wrong and when did it go wrong?

That my students, is another blog for another day.

Until then, live well.

--Zavost

Socialism, History of

Upon the Stoa this day, I was going to speak of "Modern Socialism", however, that is a misnomer since Socialism is Socialism no matter the age it is practiced.

The discussion is appropriate at this time, my class. This is a Presidential election cycle and though every election is important, this one, I feel, represents one of those pivot points in history. The United States can either continue its slide into self-imposed inferiority or it can come to its senses and wake up.

But first, a short history on what we today call "Socialism".

There have been, recorded in history, attempts to share equally and to equally bear the burdens of survival. The small hunter tribes of our distant ancestors are the only example of this working, but even then, it worked only because the leader of the tribe was bigger, stronger, and held the spear point.

In those earliest of days, the Men hunted and the women Gathered. The men broke their bones and died far from home and family coordinating to take down dangerous animals many times their size. The women endured the long torment of being another's property. Someone has to keep things organized while the men are gone. Who better than the elderly and the women.

People have been the same for the last 80,000 years. I'm sure that there were Cro-magnon fathers smacking the hands of their children who were reaching out to screw around with the cave art. Likewise, I'm sure the children had to be told to finish their antelope hoof or they will get no bone marrow for dessert.

As families turned into clans and clans turned into a people, so too did the process of government grow more complex. The division of labor, farming, and technology contributed both good and ill to our race.

Fast forwarding to a more modern example of Socialism, one need look no farther than the Mayflower colonists of Plymouth Rock fame and the first of the Jamestown settlers in Virginia.

The "Mayflower Pact" was not just a document that described their relationship with God, but described also their relationship with one another. They agreed that to have the best chance of surviving in this hostile land, they would share the fruits of their combined labor equally.

Now, people are people the world over. I'm sure that some were given better plots of land than others, some had more children to help, others had better seeds and technique than others. The inequities of life and all that.

Some grew more food than others. Some worked harder than others. Those with better seeds grew more food with less work, while some who worked hard produced little food. Life is like that. It does not care for us one way or the other. The cosmic shrug.

The results? Starvation, disease, and mutiny. Colonists died in droves. Some had food to eat, but most did not. Those that made more food than others were forced to give up that food to those who were not successful, or to those who failed to work hard enough. The result was that EVERYONE went hungry and many died.

In the Massachusetts Bay region, those that survived tore up the compact with one another and grew their own food and bartered the excess for items they could not create or did not possess. The Free Market was once again allowed to come to the fore and Massachusetts began it climb to be the most industrious of the original 13 colonies.

In Jamestown, malaria, starvation and disease took many of the colonists. "Collectivization", as it was thought of then, failed miserably. It took a hard-charging Adventurer/Mercenary to put an end to the insanity. Like farther North, the people began to grow and trade their surplus. Virginia then became the richest of all the 13 colonies.

Socialism was tried from 1607 to 1610 and killed more colonists than did the Native Americans.

The concept languished with the harsh memories of Jamestown and Plymouth fresh in historical minds. It was not until the French Revolution that Socialism began to be repackaged into something more "modern", though at its roots it was still the same old thing.

In the United States, the Founding Fathers were so Liberty-minded that the modern term Libertarian does not do justice to what their politics really were. Ron Paul would have had a comfortable dinner debating politics with Thomas Jefferson, the first recognized Democrat.

The Constitution and Federal and State laws were erected to ensure that laws placed a "Collective" burden on the people and not individual ones. The government, at any level, could not force one group to pay all the bills and allow other groups to enjoy the fruit of someone else's labor without pitching in. In other words, no one group had to pay more (relative) than another. The rich paid more because they consumed more. Plain and simple.

Sounds alien, does it not? Look up the Whiskey Rebellion. The first and only time that a sitting President led the United States Army to the field in person. A tax was being levied on Whiskey, but not other types of spirits. The Pennsylvania distillers were irate that Beer and Rum were not being taxed the same as them.

The "rebellion" was put down, but the tax was removed nonetheless.

The French took a different spin on the concept of Freedom. The Americans felt that the lay farmer had more wisdom on the soles of his shoes than anyone educated at William and Mary's, or Harvard. The French felt that the educated and the enlightened needed to care for those less educated and polished. The idea that the State was to preserve the freedoms of the people was established. Remember, in America, it was the citizen that was responsible for protecting the Republic. A huge difference that will have future relevance.

I've started with these simple concepts of how "Socialism" is not as fair as people think. To get something for "free" means that someone else must provide that good or service. For the person who gets Food Stamps or Welfare, there is no real "Input" of resources, only "Output". Without regeneration, the system will feed on itself...but I get ahead of myself.

In the 1920's, Calvin Coolidge refused to help Texas farmers during a drought. His reasoning was founded on the bedrock of the Constitution. It was not the responsibility of the Federal Government to respond to a State or regional issue. If we were being invaded by a foreign power, then yes, he would respond. To give money to farmers who did not create anything was patently insane.

Today, the Farm Bill is annual give-away by both parties to buy favor and votes...but again, I get ahead of myself.

Socialism, as put forth by the "Great" (I'm coughing as I say that) thinkers Marx and Engels, was only the beginning of a historically inevitable process as nations and peoples grew more complex and interdependent.

According to them, Capitalism (i.e. Free Market Theory) would collapse under the greed and avarice of the fat cats as the worker would rise up to take the fruits of their labors.

It was thought that this would happen in the industrialized nations, as those two felt that it was the factory worker who was the most oppressed.

Turns out they were way, wrong. The revolutions took seed in the rural areas of the world. Russia, China, and the nations smashed by WWI saw Communist activity.

You see, Socialism would give way to Communism. According to Marxist theory, no nation was ever able to attain pure "Communism". True Communism is a government-less society. Everyone works for the welfare of others, who in turn, work for the individual welfare. Everyone has a car, a phone, a place to live, and food to eat...all without a government.

Wow, that sounds pretty utopian, but that was their central theory.

Along the way, Nations would evolve from Capitalist, to a hybrid model that included creeping Socialism, and then Socialism. After a period of time, government would drop away and the people could enjoy true Communism.

Again, didn't happen.

What did happen, is that people are people are people. Some are born with more ambition than others, some are born with more drive and morals than others. It is simply in our human nature.

Remember, we are descended not from those ancestors that say,"Here, after you," but "Hey, after me." Remember that. We are here today because those who came before had more food, influence and women than other men.

What really happened was a small group of people centralized power and decided that they knew best on how to build society. Social Engineering and all that.

You see, the Free Market has been described by those like Adam Smith. Observed and documented like a force of nature. I use those terms because the Free Market is just that. It is something that exists all on its own. All you need for it to exist is for one person to trade something they don't need for something that they do need. You don't need a government telling you what you can trade and for what you can trade it for.

Socialism is humanity's attempt at remaking the world, bending the forces of nature to meet our demands. It works about as well as putting a hand up and demanding that the train stop at your whim.

To explain the complex simply, we need to look at things simply.

Nationalized healthcare sounds cool. If you are sick, just go to a doctor and get fixed up. Its free. It is a right.

It is not. Healthcare is a commodity. If my car breaks, can I go to the mechanic and simply have him fix it, no money down? No. If my car is smashed, my insurance may cover it, or help me replace it. It is my choice if I want anything more than legal liability covering the car.

I would love full coverage if someone else was paying.

How about dinner? We all need to eat. Why is food not free? Food is a right.

However it is not a right that the government was designed to provide, nor is it designed to provide for healthcare, or education, or anything other than national projects and national defense.

Socialism is great as long as you have someone else's money to spread around. New York, New Jersey and California are having a grand experiment right now. How many rich people can they drive out of their states and still have a functioning economy? Turns out, when even a few leave, the ripple effect is disastrous.

It turns out those horrible rich people actually SPEND their money...they buy houses, cars, boats, and take trips to other places, leaving a little of their money behind all the time. Wow.

When those people leave, they buy all that stuff from someone else, and YOU suffer. Bummer. Pretty simple, huh?

How about the Federal Government seize all of our rights and make the 50 (or 57) States completely dependent on Washington D.C.? The rich will not be able to run any longer...what? They can go to Singapore and other countries? Darn.

Socialism loves to call the rich "greedy", but it is the rich that have done more for the Republic than any other.

Thomas Jefferson donated his library to the Federal Government who then used it as the seed to start the National Library.

Big Oil bastard, John Rockefeller provided the grand money to permit Colonial Williamsburg to be restored as a living example of American Exceptionalism.

The Anheuser Busch family created Busch Gardens. Walt Disney gave us, well, Disney. The Smithsonian was a donation from an English guy who never even lived here, though he admired our spirit. Why didn't he give his inheritance to the British government, I wonder?

Theodore Roosevelt provided free education to the poor and disadvantaged in the big cities. He sent them West where they could become self-reliant MEN. He was poisoned with Progressivism, but the results there were pure charity.

In Socialism there can be no charity. Only a small group of people deciding who gets what and who must make it. Over time, an equilibrium is reached and there is then forever growing expense and not enough money to pay for it.

The EU and Europe are the best examples of this.

During the late 1800's, nations began to play around with Socialism. Germany had universal healthcare in 1871. Democratic Socialism began to blend...the hybrid model...

By the 1960's, this liberal experiment of blending Socialsim and Democracy began to falter. Democracy never works because sooner or later, a group of people will begin to vote themselves ever increasing amounts of largesse. It just happens that way. That is why we are a REPUBLIC, with checks and balances.

The EU now finds itself Trillions of dollars in debt and with NOTHING to show for all that. Can you believe it? Trillions have been loaned and will NEVER be repaid.

This is because all of that was expense without any intent to create wealth. Wealth begets wealth and debt begets more debt.

I'm sorry, but that is just how it works. Everything costs and nothing is free. Someone, somewhere must pay for that good or service that you are possessing or consuming. Farm tractors don't just assemble themselves. Bridges don't just fall into being. The ham sandwich provided at your meeting may not have cost you anything, but the person setting up the meeting caused it to be created and given to you. Someone with currency requires something. Someone with skill constructs or provides that need. The rich people are the perpetual motion portion of a free market economy. Kill them and you kill the economy...and innovation. Just remember, it was no government office that willed the iPad into creation, nor could it will the smart phone into existence. Rich people seeking to become richer did those things.

Socialism breaks the human spirit. Just ask East Germany and Cuba. How many West Germans were killed trying to get into East Germany over the Iron Curtain?

Here is a hint: ZERO.

How many Floridians die every year trying to ride the ocean current to Cuba and Socialist Utopia? Zero.

Say what you want about the pros and cons of Socialism. It is all just theory anyhow. Look to how it is applied and who chooses to live under it.

Your answers are there. America began the hybridization some time ago and our system is beginning to collapse. We are not far behind Europe.

Just remember these types of Socialism:

Socialism: means of capital and production centrally directed by a small group of unelected officials.

Communism: means of capital and production undirected and are spontanious to the needs of the people (fairy land).

Fascism: means of capital and production controlled by the STATE. Think GM and Fanny Mae. Also, when you hear people say that the Republicans are Fascists, point out to them what the acronym NAZI stood for: The National Democratic Socialist Worker's Party. Socialist, NOT Free Market based.

Socialism has murdered over 150 million people in the 20th century. How many must die in the 21st?

Live well,

Zavost