The Postmodern Socialist

We have over 200 years of evidence suggesting Socialism has failed both in theory and in practice. Perhaps worse than its failure is the destruction, the lost lives, the decades of stifled expression, art, innovation, and the tyranny and totalitarianism left in the wake of its attempted implementations.

Capitalism, their mortal enemy, has only gotten better. It never collapsed as predicted, the proletariat never revolted as predicted, and life under capitalism never got worse as predicted. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. Freedom, opportunity, happiness, and innovation all increased.

Oddly enough, and despite of all this, there are still proud and ardent socialists fighting the good fight, and they would love nothing more than for societies to become socialist. Why?

I doubt it is for rational reasons, because, as already intimated, the evidence shows otherwise. The theoretical criticisms, the wisdom of generations and the preponderance of evidence is against their theory, and the historical implementation of socialism has led to the exact opposite of the conditions they’ve always promised. If they do sincerely want socialism, it is more likely they do so because they are ignorant to the evidence, following this or that feeling, rather than according to any rational reasons.

Maybe they are aware of the evidence and criticisms after all—with so much time on their hands waiting for socialism, surely they’re privy to its downsides by now—but that they would rather dismiss it than to face it honestly. With the lack of evidence in support of their theories in combination with the dismissal of the evidence to the contrary, their belief has become nothing but a dogma, an article of personal religion, and they have accepted their irrationalism in a subsequent leap of faith.

The theory of cognitive dissonance explains it a little better. In order to avoid the mental stress posed by a crisis to their belief system, rather than abandon the belief system and admit to its faults, a series of mental justifications occur. In most cases, the advocate (studies used cult members) returns even more entrenched in the beliefs and engages in even more proselytizing than before.

Consider some examples. Socialists like to pretend the Nordic model, social democracy, and welfare states are socialist, but refuse to say the same about countries that set out to achieve socialism both in their revolutions and written constitutions. Bernie Sanders tried to use Denmark as an example of his "democratic socialism", but was thoroughly refuted by none other than the Danish Prime Minister. Some self-proclaimed socialists (perhaps learning from conservatives) look at capitalist societies and pretend things like taxes, universal healthcare, labour unions, public goods and services, welfare, standing armies, charity, are socialist in nature and practice, while not one these were born in any socialist society.

It is no strange wonder that socialists nowadays are, on the whole, postmodernists. A relativistic, subjective and sophistical outlook is required to maintain such falsities in the face of the cold hard truth.

Maybe that’s what all this is—maybe the entirety of postmodernism is a sophisticated, yet sophistical, rhetorical method with which to waylay the cognitive dissonance brought about by the realization that their prophecies, their religion, and their moral foundation—Socialism—has failed spectacularly.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Capitalism, their mortal enemy, has only gotten better. It never collapsed as predicted, the proletariat never revolted as predicted, and life under capitalism never got worse as predicted. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. Freedom, opportunity, happiness, and innovation all increased.

It must be nice to live in your imagination where the early 1900's didn't happen where all the nation's biggest industries monopolized their fields.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It must be nice to live in your imagination where the early 1900's didn't happen where all the nation's biggest industries monopolized their fields.

Clearly the 1900's happened. It's the year 2017.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It must be nice to live in your imagination where the early 1900's didn't happen where all the nation's biggest industries monopolized their fields.

Clearly the 1900's happened. It's the year 2017.

Capitalism, their mortal enemy, has only gotten better. It never collapsed as predicted, the proletariat never revolted as predicted, and life under capitalism never got worse as predicted. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. Freedom, opportunity, happiness, and innovation all increased.

Clearly, you and I have different definitions of the word "never". I wonder, are you going to admit that the reason things are no longer the way they were in the 1900's was thanks to Socialist policies? Or are you planning on glossing over that piece of history in your thread?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

taxes, universal healthcare, labour unions, public goods and services, welfare, standing armies, charity, are socialist in nature and practice, while not one these were born in any socialist society

So why does anybody who endorses these things get called a Commie or a Socialist by the Wing Nuts?

Please explain that, thanks.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Is living and working conditions better or worse today than they were earlier in Capitalist societies?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

So why does anybody who endorses these things get called a Commie or a Socialist by the Wing Nuts?

Please explain that, thanks.

I think because some socialists, for instance Trotsky, have argued that these things would end up bringing about the downfall of Capitalism.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Clearly, you and I have different definitions of the word "never". I wonder, are you going to admit that the reason things are no longer the way they were in the 1900's was thanks to Socialist policies? Or are you planning on glossing over that piece of history in your thread?

Socialist policies? Care to provide an example?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They are better today thanks to a mix of Socialist and Capitalist policies keeping the ugly extremes of both sides from manifesting themselves.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408

So why does anybody who endorses these things get called a Commie or a Socialist by the Wing Nuts?

Please explain that, thanks.

I think because some socialists, for instance Trotsky, have argued that these things would end up bringing about the downfall of Capitalism.

But a lot of Communists and Socialists, or maybe more relevantly Marxists, despise Trotsky.

That may drag this off topic so no need too reply, just thought it would be interesting to note that.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Clearly, you and I have different definitions of the word "never". I wonder, are you going to admit that the reason things are no longer the way they were in the 1900's was thanks to Socialist policies? Or are you planning on glossing over that piece of history in your thread?

Socialist policies? Care to provide an example?

Well let's see. Do you think that breaking up a monopoly is an example of free trade?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

But a lot of Communists and Socialists, or maybe more relevantly Marxists, despise Trotsky.

That may drag this off topic so no need too reply, just thought it would be interesting to note that.

No I think you're right. That's why I said in parenthesis "perhaps learning from Conservatives".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well let's see. Do you think that breaking up a monopoly is an example of free trade?

No, could you provide an example of a socialist policy, for instance collectivized farms or something along those lines.

Socialism has been redefined many times depending on many things. I suppose you could consider some things like roads and parks as a social program paid for by all in the interest of all. If that is someones definition of socialism and it stops there then I am ok with it.
My problem is that socialism is also in many cases interventionism. This means that they take from all for the interest of some. There are many examples of this. First example is corporate welfare - it does exist. Second example is geographical prioritizing - it does exist. Third example is class prioritizing. It does exist.

Another issue is that socialism by definition cannot exist without natural market conditions. That means risk as well as individual gains for those who are the best at what they do, or sometimes are just at the right place at the right time. Without people making money (symbolic item that is actually work plus production value) no socialist system can exist. This is why countries like Venezuela or the Soviet Union failed, they attempted to replace the nature of the market with the hand of man and central planning. Why? Well to make everything fair of course. But soon without any actual benefit to make the individual inspire to produce the product and work become nothing and then everything eventually becomes worthless.

I think that most who consider themselves socialist cannot stand for that alone. Because it is "unfair". And yet none of those same people would exclude themselves from any monetary advantage if it showered upon them. But it is truly hatred of nature and hatred of life that inspires most socialist. It is envy and just about every ugly human emotion possible that makes a person start demanding that everyone else take care of everyone else OR ELSE! And it will never end. People will clamor for this sort of thing as long as there are people. The best that can be done is to try to change the culture and the education system to make people understand that evil is not brought by the devil necessarily, but by individuals and groups of individuals answering initial bad decisions by more bad decisions. Never thinking past the moment but only about right now and what they want right now.

Pure socialism or capitolism are terrible.
They all must have some of the other blended in to function correctly.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
... and life under capitalism never got worse as predicted. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. Freedom, opportunity, happiness, and innovation all increased.

Could you provide us with clear evidence of this ? Thanks.

Post modernism was born only of the problem that the horrors of the Soviet Union and Mao's China came to light it was hard for the Paris intellectual class to keep supporting communism in public. They came up with that particular philosophy to get around flaws in their arguments. It is in a nutshell, the philosophy of "any explanation is a better explanation even if there is no historical or logical basis - it just needs to be an explanation that supports the left."

Another issue to investigate is the Frankfurt school. This is where the SJW peops have their birth.

Capitalism, their mortal enemy, has only gotten better. It never collapsed as predicted, the proletariat never revolted as predicted, and life under capitalism never got worse as predicted. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. Freedom, opportunity, happiness, and innovation all increased.

I see you haven't been paying much attention to America these days. The wealth inequality in this country and the rising poverty rate goes against your premise here.

All forms of economy and government eventually fail, we are starting to see the same with capitalism. The few at the top can only funnel so much money into their bank accounts before people start wising up to the con.

Unbridled capitalism is what led to the financial collapse of 2007. Have your forgotten about that already?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The only ones who quote the "Nordic model" are unfamiliar of the REVERSAL that occurred.

Poverty rates in Sweden are very low compared to the U.S. This is largely because Sweden was committed to ensuring full employment

Big Government Big Welfare / State Socialism only took less than 30 years to bring them down. Now they CUT taxes, reformed welfare, partially privatized pensions, cut regulations, provided school vouchers....

Luckily, instead of "doubling-down" on stupid, they reversed course.

www.bostonglobe.com...

Scandinavia’s hard-left turn didn’t come about until much later. It was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that taxes soared, welfare payments expanded, and entrepreneurship was discouraged.

But what emerged wasn’t heaven on earth.

That 1976 story in Time, for example, went on to report that Sweden found itself struggling with crime, drug addiction, welfare dependency, and a plague of red tape. Successful Swedes — most famously, Ingmar Bergman — were fleeing the country to avoid its killing taxes. “Growing numbers are plagued by a persistent, gnawing question: Is their Utopia going sour?”

Sweden’s world-beating growth rate dried up. In 1975, it had been the fourth-wealthiest nation on earth (as measured by GDP per capita); by 1993, it had dropped to 14th. By then, Swedes had begun to regard their experiment with socialism as, in Sanandaji’s phrase, “a colossal failure.”

www.investors.com...

Sweden has been repealing its welfare state post-crisis. Norberg says the country has become "successful again, but only after a new reform period, with more deregulation and free trade than in other countries." Taxes have been cut, school vouchers allocated, and the pension system partially privatized as Sweden distances itself from its welfare-state past.

reason.com...

Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries have experimented with very big government and semi-socialist ideas. There's just one problem: That experiment coincided almost perfectly with the region's only sustained period of economic decline over the last 100 years.

Sanders' image of Scandinavia is just like the rest of his policies: stuck in the 1970s. Until that decade, Sweden and Denmark had grown much faster than other European countries and had become richer than most other countries on the planet, in large part by limiting government and embracing markets.

www.nationalreview.com...

During the past few decades, the Nordic countries have gradually been reforming their social systems. Taxes have been cut to stimulate work, public benefits have been limited in order to reduce welfare dependency, pension savings have been partially privatized, for-profit forces have been allowed in the welfare sector, and state monopolies have been opened up to the market. In short, the universal-welfare-state model is being liberalized. Even the social-democratic parties themselves realize the need for change. Curiously, the American admirers of Nordic-style democratic socialism pay no heed to any of these facts.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well let's see. Do you think that breaking up a monopoly is an example of free trade?

No, could you provide an example of a socialist policy, for instance collectivized farms or something along those lines.

The New Deal is pretty Socialist in nature. So is our progressive tax rate.

Face facts man. This country isn't totally capitalism in nature. Socialism has helped this country just as much as capitalism has. Just because there isn't pure socialism here doesn't mean it isn't here in some form.