“For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 43.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 86.

There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.

When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 91.

When one observes the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine-gun fire—one can no longer believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated by benevolence and by the desire to achieve men’s welfare.
No man of authentic benevolence could evade or ignore so great a horror on so vast a scale.

Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs.
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 87.

The socialists had a certain kind of logic on their side: if the collective sacrifice of all to all is the moral ideal, then they wanted to establish this ideal in practice, here and on this earth. The arguments that socialism would not and could not work, did not stop them: neither has altruism ever worked, but this has not caused men to stop and question it. Only reason can ask such questions—and reason, they were told on all sides, has nothing to do with morality, morality lies outside the realm of reason, no rational morality can ever be defined.

The fallacies and contradictions in the economic theories of socialism were exposed and refuted time and time again, in the Nineteenth Century as well as today. This did not and does not stop anyone: it is not an issue of economics, but of morality. The intellectuals and the so-called idealists were determined to make socialism work. How? By that magic means of all irrationalists: somehow.
“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 68.

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

“Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon,”
Los Angeles Times, Sept. 9, 1962, G2

Both “socialism” and “fascism” involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates “the vesting of ownership and control” in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.

Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.

In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say “more honest,” not “better”—because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government—and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects.
“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 202.

The Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, socialism. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. “Socialism” for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism—in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

“To be a socialist,” says Goebbels, “is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”

By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.
Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 19.smn has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
- From The New Intellectual



"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia - or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."
- From "The Monument Builders"


"There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism - and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy - that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel."
- From "The Monument Builders"

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- From "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"
"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."
- From "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus"

d on Socialism


"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
- From The New Intellectual



"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia - or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."
- From "The Monument Builders"

"There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism - and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy - that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel."
- From "The Monument Builders"

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- From "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"


"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."
- From "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus"

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Mainstream.......

A blank page to project ones desires....................?

Wow. That's good Vi. I got "Atlas Shrugged" on back order...(yeah, I still use public libraries). Isn't it strange how socialism, to the "well intentioned" lib, means we ALL get it ALL. The "escaping..socialism...barbed wire...bulletfire" excerpt says it all, shows it all, but these dupes are blind, blinded by greed to satisfy their own desires........yet, they will get nothing. Nothing.

Every one of these books has its place on my book shelves. I've read every one of them more than once. You are exactly right, cc. All one has to do is talk with people who lived under a communist dictatorship, as Ayn Rand did, to gain insight into the slavery wrought by the totalitarian state. Either that, or get audited by the IRS.

That's when one finds out that in a totalitarian environment, the police are not there to protect Human Rights, but instead, are there to destroy those rights.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

So, you actually think the police are there to protect you and your rights, ~LOL~ thats a very misdirected theory. They are there to get a paycheck and use their power to bolster their ego. You must protect yourself. I do not ever propose a socialistic state with jackbooted thugs, just as I hope you with your Nazi tendicies don't propose a state with the same. I propose more socialism for the society and more freedom also. This would be called something like socialistic capitalism, whereby people would be free to do as they do now, but every citizen would be guaranteed basic social services. Mainly Medical is my concern, we have 160 million+++ that are either un-insured or underinsured. I'm sure we could easily work out a plan to cover everyone. Hopefully Obama will get-ur-done. A plan to do something about the homeless. A plan to help people save their houses, fuck the speculators, let them burn. I realize you won't read all this Vi, but to keep calling me names is very unproductive. Posting excerpts from a 50+++ year old book written by someone that lived under jackbooted thugs and comparing that to modern times is rather extreme. I do see a parallel in the bush regimes reduction of our freedom though, and that is from the right. In fact most of the worsening individual freedoms in the last 50 years have come from the right, Nixon,(war on drugs) Reagon and his trickle down, and this monster we have now, your buddy Bush, (War on terror, and our freedoms) The left hasn't been in control since the lobbyists took over Washington, so I can't under your great fear they will suddenly upsurge and throw the robber barrons out. The only thing that makes sense is that you may have to pay more taxes,,, wah, wah, wah!

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

as with most misguided do-gooders, your robin hood complex comes complete with a total denial of reality and a seeming lack of even the most rudimentary understanding of history. socialism and freedom are nearly antithetical. this naive belief that such totalitarian measures can remain under the control of the people is a delusion of the feeble minded.

__________________
When her work is done, she forgets it. That is why it lasts forever.
If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.

So let me summarize: I'm a misguided do-gooder with a Robin Hood complex, totally denying reality, stupid about history, naive, delusional and feeble minded, does this about sum up your position?
I'll just call you an ass and be done with it.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Sincerely, with the exception of the feeble minded part, I'd say that's a fairly accurate description, Med.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.