The Communists Are Coming!

Good morning, and welcome to G20 day and the anarchy that surrounds it. I'm The Nameless Libertarian, and I'll be live-blogging all the action as it happens, across Britain's Capital, today. All out riot or damp squib, I'll be here, bringing you the details minute by minute.

No, of course I won't really be live-blogging the bunch of guff that happens today. Partly because I suspect nothing will happen, but mainly because I have a job* and therefore don't have the time to waste on such things.

Still, the potential protests have had one great advantage. I'm able to come to work in dress down today. Fucking ace. God bless the hippies. Trixy wouldn't approve, and I'm not sure - given the massive police presence around and about today** - it is actually needed, but fuck it. I'll warmly embrace any opportunity for me not to have to wear a fucking suit.

However, one thing is worth pointing out today. That is what the protestors aren't. They aren't Communists - Marxism has little time for protest, seeing it as ultimately pointless and doing nothing to progress or hinder dialectical materialism and the inevitable revolution. They aren't anti-captialist - their fucking Che t-shirts are mass produced by capitalists. They aren't pacifists - that tag will die as soon as the first brick and/or punch is thrown.

If they are anything, then they are nihilists. They don't believe in anything. They don't have anything to fight for, they don't really believe in anything. They are just against *stuff*.

Many people accuse Libertarians of being negative, and having nothing to offer. They are, of course, morons. Libertarianism is the most liberating of all political ideologies, and offers a true, radical change for the world. These protestors are the ones who are just negative and have nothing to offer. They are against capitalism, they are against war, they are against climate change. And they have nothing to offer, except their impotent, ill-thought through rage.

Fuck 'em***.

*For the moment (crosses fingers)
**25 police vans parked on one street this morning on my route to work. 25. And not one of them was parked properly.
***Not literally, they won't have washed in ages.

G20: Pointless Protests

I ignored the protests about the G20. My life is too short to get worked up about them one way or another. I’m fairly sure that they will achieve precisely nothing, but that has never stopped a good protest. And, if you really want to find out how they went, it is always best to hear about these things from those actually on the streets during the protest. So, ladies and gents, let’s turn to Penny Red and her account of the protests:

My throat is raw. I'm screaming at the top of my lungs:

One, two, three, four -
Corporate bailouts no more!
Five, six, seven, eight -
Spend it on the welfare state!

Chants in protests aren’t known for being that wise; this one is one of the better ones*. However, it does beg the question of why the money has to be spent at all? Why do we need to spend billions on either corporate bailouts or the welfare state? They’ve both received billions of pounds, to very little effect. Throwing more money at them will achieve nothing, other than higher tax bills.

There's city dust in my eyes, and my legs feel like blocks of wood as we take the final mile down Picadilly towards Hyde Park. A painted banner flaps against my body, proclaiming us Anti-Capitalist Feminists. And I'm still chanting. I'm an animal, a tiny, burning ball of rage and justice, I've got all my sisters with me, it's been four hours since my last latte and I'm running on adrenaline and outrage. Me and thirty-five thousand others.

Anti-Capitalist Feminists? That must be quite a niche group. The sort of group that has about three members on your standard university campus. And each of those three members is the sort of ranting bore you would cross the street to avoid.

But for me the best line is the one about “my last latte”. Fucking hell, there is nothing more communist or feminist then quaffing lattes before going on a protest march. Lenin used to do that, you know. Just before he seized power in Russia, he was in Starbucks having a latte. Those miners in the miner’s strike of the mid-80’s, they were quaffing lattes too. It really is the drink of the working class revolutionaries. Assuming, of course, that you mean Guardian reading Nathan Barley types when you say working class revolutionaries.

And yet the Put People First march is still, somehow, suffused with an air of pessimism. The Troops Out Of Baghdad placards look especially mournful: because yes, we have been here before. The last time I marched down Picadilly in the cold March breeze with thousands upon thousands of angry fellow citizens, we wanted to stop the troops going in to Baghdad, and we were heard, and we were ignored. The samba players are overwhelmed by the thump and screech of a marching band from the end of the world, and the set-piece of the procession is a cheery twenty-foot tall rendering of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Thunderclouds are gathering.

It did thunder on Saturday in London! Wow, that’s not just hyperbole, it is also an accurate representation of the weather on Saturday! Accuracy from the left. Whatever next?

Valid point about the Baghdad thing, though. They didn’t listen back then. And aren’t listening right now. So maybe it is time to shut the fuck up about the Iraq War thing, eh? The countless deaths of hundreds of thousands, the failure to find WMDs, the realisation that this war was completely illegal have all failed to change the minds of those leading the Coalition of the Willing. So a few thousand crusty lefties and would-be hippies isn’t going to be a blind bit of fucking difference, now, is it?

A woman I'm marching with tells me that she doesn't think the G20 will change anything even if it's in their power to do so. Ahead of me, in front of the RMT banners, an old man is explaining to the just-walking little boy holding his hand about the protests in 1981. We've seen all this before. So why are we still here?

Good question. Why are you there? Why waste your time when you don’t think people are going to listen and when previous protests have been ignored?

We're here because we're fed up of being lied to. We're here because we've been royally screwed over, and now we're angry. We're here because even if we don't expect to be listened to, that doesn't mean we'll stop trying to be heard. Not ever.

Being heard is fine; but you can increase your chances of being heard by presenting your message in a palatable way. Truth is, in order to achieve real change in this country you need to get the middle classes on board. And you ain’t ever going to do that with this sort of protest. But more on that later. Take a look at the final paragraph:

On my way home through Green Park, tired beyond words, I pick a bunch of wilting daffodils that glow faintly in my grimy hands in the noonlight. Around the corner, the band are still playing, the people are still screaming, the dull rumble of thirty-five-thousand feet is still ringing down the thoroughfare. Dreamily, I give out the daffs to the rows of police officers standing in front of the Ritz. One of them even takes a lower, and pops it in his lapel.

And we danced all night on hippy moonbeams to the tunes of the Grateful Dead. Or perhaps Toploader instead. Yeah, that would work. Altogether now… one-two-three-four “It’s such a fine and natural sight/Everybody dancing in the noonlight…”

It is easy to sneer. And fun, too. Particularly when the group you are sneering at leave you with so many open fucking goals. See, I knew that this protest would achieve nothing. After all, those protesting couldn’t even agree on what they were protesting about. Capitalism? Iraq War? Feminism? The Welfare State? Any of the above? None of the above? What was the point? What the ruddy fuck did people forsake their lattes for? Unless you can agree on what you want to protest about, you aren’t going to really achieve anything. Protesting about vague, generic left-wing gripes indicates you are against everything that it is fashionable to be against. Which is my first point.

The second point is that protests just aren’t the right medium for getting things done. At best, they act as an inconvenience for the authorities and something for the middle class media to tut at. At worst, they are a forum for bellicose idiots. The only real protests that can potentially have an impact are those that turn violent. But then they tend to be called riots. And they tend to result in the participants getting their heads smashed in by the police, and being arrested for their troubles.

Protests are only worth going on if you have a romanticised vision of Paris in 1968. The truth is that was the exception, not the rule, and with this vague, leftie protests you alienate far more people that you win over. The government resents you for getting in their faces, the middle classes disapprove of you because they don’t get this protesting lark, and the media paints you as dangerous subversives with dangerous views that are going to undermine everything that the middle classes hold dear. Plus your placards generally look shit and your chants are normally wank.

I believe people have the right to protest, I really do. But owing to my position as a pragmatic stakeholder in the real world, I also know that an all-encompassing anti-war, anti-capitalist protest by a rag-bag mix of lefties and hippies is going to achieve about as much as a fart in a hurricane.

*Back in my wayward and misspent youth I attended a march against tuition fees. Yes, I was young and naïve. Even more flawed back then than I am now. And I soon realised that I did not want to be there. Because the chant the protesters came up with – and shouted across Durham – went like this: “One Two Three Cheese! We don’t want no top up fees.” Grammatically nonsensical and referencing cheese for no other reason than to create a crap rhyme. No wonder the protest was ignored by all the targets of the protest.

You can take your Marxism and you can shove it right up your...

… well… you can probably guess the rest.

One of the many negative aspects to this economic downturn is the rush of people towards socialism and the big daddy of socialist morons, Karl Marx himself. And what is even worse than people trying to register support for ol’ Karl is people trying to be funny about their suddenly vaguely fashionable Marxist tendencies. As this article proves.

I could do a detailed fisking of that article, but holy Jesus, I have better things to do with my ever diminishing life. The author tries and utterly fails to be funny repeatedly, at the same time as revealing his ignorance of the very ideology he is championing. A word to the not-so-wise; if you are going to pursue an ideology, make sure you actually know the details of whatever it is you are meant to be defending and advocating.

However the rush towards Marx, and the constant veneration of odious Marxists like Che Guevera by some, reveals a deeper ignorance of an ideology that is deeply destructive. Yeah, Marx got some things right. He reckoned that boom and bust are natural parts of capitalism. But most economists would recognise that. He also had some interesting theories about alienation of labour – ideas that still have some relevance today. But for a man who wrote as prolifically as Karl Marx, getting something right at some point was inevitable. Just as that infinite number of monkeys at those typewriters could, in theory, come up with the complete works of Shakespeare.

Yet in so many different ways, Marx was utterly wrong. And his errors are so numerous that it would almost be compelling, if they weren’t so dangerous. None more so in his conclusions about where his spurious theories of society would take us all. As counter-culture and cool as it might be to support Marx during this (perfectly natural, even according to Marx) downturn in global capitalism, I think everyone should be very clear about supporting Marxism means. It means you support violent revolution. It means you support dictatorship. It means you support the collapse of the society we live in, and handing over absolute political power to violent revolutionaries who are going to divine some sort of better society for all from a non-existent blue-print. You can claim that Marx’s ultimate intent was utopian; the practical ends of his ideology are thoroughly dystopian.

Marxist theorists (for, believe it or not, they do still exist) will argue that we have never had an actual application of Marx’s ideas. Well, bollocks to that. The Stalinist state, the Maoist state, the regimes of Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il are all examples of the deluded, insane and deeply destructive implementation of Marxism. The problem isn’t that Marxism has never been correctly applied; the real problem is that Marxism is a deeply flawed political ideology that advocates dictatorship and sees people in general as largely bovine and in desperate need of firm guidance from portly, disconnected from reality philosophers such as Marx. The end result of Marxism is the Soviet State, pure and simple.

The recession will have come as a shock to many, and will cause some to review their political beliefs. That’s fine – it is a healthy thing to review what you think in light of events (something Marx himself wasn’t that good at). But the answer to any review of ideology should not be Marxism. Marxism doesn’t work; if you try to force Marxism on societies, then your utterly, utterly destroy those societies. Applying Marxism to countries damaged by the recession will lead to the death of democracy in those countries, and the complete stagnation of their economies.

You might ask the question about what we need to do in the face of the credit crunch. The answer is not turn to Karl Marx.

The Lives of Others

Every now and again you see a truly great film. I had the fortune of seeing one such film on Sunday - The Lives of Others.

It is an extraordinary film in so many ways. For those of you who don't know it (and, as a heads up, there are spoilers ahead), it tells the story of a couple in East Germany who fall under the watchful, malevolent glare of the Stasi. It then depicts the slow unravelling of one of the main characters, and the malign methods used by both the Stasi and by Communist government ministers to achieve what they want.

This genre of film - dealing with totalitarian regimes - often lends itself (understandly) to dwelling on the brutality and emotional hysteria attached to life under a dictatorship. The Lives of Others does not take that route at all. The *crimes* against the state are very minor - taking unprescribed prescription drugs, writing an article about the hidden suicide stats - rather than this being a tale of revolutionaries trying to bring down the nation. The methods of the Stasi are more underhand and psychological than physically abusive or sadistic. And the end of the film - when a Stasi officer realises that sacrificing his career to protect the man he was spying on has been realised and subtly, but very publicly, acknowledged - is played out in a clever, moving and utterly fitting way.

However what was most striking for me was just how the Communist state was depicted. The film steered well clear of the cliched view of totalitarian companies so often shown on the big screen. Rather, life in the former East Germany was shown to be grim. Whatever freedoms were on display could be revoked at any time by the state, and there were gross government ministers who had absolutely no issue with using and abusing their power to settle grudges, break people and get laid. Finally, the Stasi operated completely without compunction - they were happy to invade people's homes, search those properties destructively over and over again, and bribe and blackmail just about anyone to achieve what they wanted to achieve. Betrayal and broken people were depicted as the norm under this Communist regime, not the exception. And the state came across as far more nightmarish as a result.

The Lives of Others is definitely worth watching - both as an example of excellent film making, but also as a reminder of how grim life is under a totalitarian and dictatorial state, and why every failure by the government in their attempts to expand their powers should be celebrated.

Understanding Putin's Success

Whilst the “Georgian operation” (what a wonderful euphemism for an all out military assault) is coming to an end, the world is looking at Russia and feeling a bit twitchy. This shouldn’t be a new feeling. After all, it was pretty much the status quo between circa 1948 and circa 1990. Talk of a new Cold War is premature, but it is difficult to look at the situation in Georgia and not feel deeply concerned by what is happening. Russia does not tend to fight wars with restraint and a desire to avoid collateral damage. Their mindset is not about controlling rebels or bringing order to a particular region. It is about crushing the opposition. Brutally and unmercifully.

There is more than enough commentary on what has caused this conflict, and what it means for Georgia and the rest of the world. I’m not going to rehash all that. But there is a simple reason why the Russian people will support Putin in his brutal and violent suppression in Georgia. Putin is the leader they want – not least because he is prepared to do things like this.

Before we look at why Putin is the leader Russia wants, let’s clear up a point of admin. Medvedev maybe the President of Russia, but he is very clearly Putin’s puppet. To claim otherwise is hopelessly naïve. Putin remains the leader of Russia, even though he has the technically subordinate position of Prime Minister. In fact it is entirely conceivable that, for the Russian Federation, the position of Prime Minister will become the true seat of power rather than the President – just as the post of General Secretary in the Soviet Union superseded roles such as Premier in the Soviet Union.

So, having accepted that Putin is the real leader of Russia, let’s take a look at why. Yes, part of the reason is because he rigs election. But there is still a groundswell of support of Vlad the dictator. And part of that reason is because Putin is steeped in the history of the Soviet Union, and partly because – despite the numerous screw-ups – he is also restoring some national pride to a nation that, since 1989, has been suffering some sort of national breakdown.

Let’s look at both of those reasons in turn. Firstly, Putin – who famously is an ex-KGB agent – is steeped in the history of the former Soviet Union. And he looks and acts like a capable, Soviet leader in the years before they became decrepit, dying, obese and increasingly bovine. He inspires confidence as he appears to be on the ball, intelligent, and capable or making both quick and difficult decisions. He was also part of one of the few areas of the Soviet state that actually worked efficiently: the KGB.

And it is important to remember that the majority of the Russian population are also steeped in the former Soviet Union. It has been less that twenty years since the Soviet Union vanished into the history books – and some people might hark back to the relative security of the totalitarian Soviet state next to the relative anarchy that came with the introduction of democracy. They also might look back with rose-tinted spectacle on the former Soviet Union for another reason: at the height of the Soviet Union, Russia was respected and feared internationally. Putin is recreating that aura.

Russia is again acting swiftly and brutally to quell opposition. Georgia is just the latest example. Putin is making Russia a strong, and terrifying, international superpower again. He knows the US will do nothing to challenge Russia, and that the country – by dint of the sheer size both in terms of land mass and nuclear arsenal – can do pretty much what it likes without any real threat of retribution. Invade a satellite nation, surpress democracy, kill a political opponent in London; Putin can do it all, because we need Russia, and are slightly afraid of it as well.

So Russia is becoming a superpower again – and for those who remember the Soviet Union as a global force to be reckoned with and feel proud about that can take some comfort from Putin’s bellicose and aggressive behaviour. Russia is a key player in international politics; it has a clear identity. Putin is responsible for much of that.

Above all, what Putin has managed to do is recreate some elements of the Soviet Union – strong leadership and international renown – without recreating the stagnant, bureaucratic mess that the Communist State became. He is offering the best of both worlds, so it is no wonder that many people in Russia respect and support him.

Please note I am not advocating the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a brutal, corrupt, monolithic and hopelessly bureaucratic dictatorship. It was destined to fail for two reasons (ignoring the utterly stupid political philosophy it was based on). Firstly, the purges removed anyone with any talent from senior roles in the state on a regular basis. Secondly, the Five Year Plans were never reached but because people lied about achieving them new, even more ambitious Five Year Plans were put into place. So you had the farcical situation of the less talented people trying to realise a Five Year Plan based on the unrealistic goals of a previous Five Year Plan that was never actually achieved. It is no wonder the Soviet Union fell apart. Had it not been for the brutal suppression of debate and free speech, the Soviet Union would have fallen apart far earlier than it did.

Nor is this a love letter to Vladimir Putin. He scares the living hell out of me. He has the zeal, the determination, and the stare of an ideologue and a madman. He wants the best for Russia, and will get it whatever the cost. He is a dangerous man to have in charge of Russia, and his ongoing grasp of power will have serious ramifications not just for Russia, but for the world as a whole.

But it is worth noting just how Putin has managed to stay in power for so long, and why people in Russia do support him. We can (rightly) complain and protest as much as we like about Putin and his actions, but there is a method to his apparent madness. And unless we understand the mindset of the Russian people – which is mired in some of the most turbulent historical changes if recent memory – we won’t understand why things like the Georgian conflict, or the murder of Litvinenko, or the war in Chechnya happen.

Democracy came to Russia in the corpulent and corrupt form of Boris Yeltsin. It is a bit like the British people getting their first taste of democracy through someone like Michael Martin. So the Russian people can be forgiven for looking to a strong figure steeped in the past for real leadership – even if the ramifications for those in Russian satellite states and potentially further abroad are terrifying. And until the Russian people get offered something better that Putin and his ilk, they will continue the support the steely eyed, neo-totalitarian leader who is able to restore something resembling national pride to what once was one of the world’s superpowers.

Protesting at the Olympic Flame

As anyone who has even glanced at a news outlet over the past 24 hours will know, there has been a tad of controversy over the Olympic flame being brought through London and now through Paris. Can’t think what might be encouraging the attempts to grab and extinguish the Olympic flame. Except perhaps the utter subjugation of the Tibetan people.

Still, at least we have these comforting words from the IOC:

Speaking in Beijing earlier, IOC President Jacques Rogge said the IOC "called for a rapid, peaceful resolution of Tibet".

Presumably he means resolution of the Tibetan situation, or instigation of a Tibetan nation state. Because the Chinese arguably resolved Tibet many moons ago. When they invaded, and began to wipe out the indigenous culture. Semantics, I know, but words can be important.

However Rogge is quick to let slip what is really on his mind:

He also condemned attempts to disrupt the Olympic torch relay, saying violence "is not compatible with the values" of the Olympic Games.

Absolutely. I would imagine the protests aren’t compatible with the values of the Olympics. But the subjugation, and slow extermination, of the Tibetan people by the Chinese government won’t be compatible with the views of those protesting. At since human lives are at stake, then the protestors probably rank the values of the protests just a little higher than the values of the Olympic Games.

Now, I have serious issues with the Chinese government (a statement which, no doubt, fills the Chinese government with precisely no fear whatsoever). Ignoring for a moment the occupation of Tibet, this is also a totalitarian Communist/Maoist state. There is no democracy in China, and they liberally apply the death penalty and imprison supposed political dissidents. I understand the need for the likes of Rogge to defend China, and to criticise the actions of the protestors. However Rogge and the IOC should have anticipated these protests when they awarded the games to China, and should understand why so many people should attack the symbol of the Olympics as it traverses the globe. Because they are not attacking the Olympics, but rather the totalitarian government ruling the host of the games this year.

Stalin The Scamp

Via DK I see Arthur Scargill - failed Union boss, failed revolutionary, and, well, failure - has recently been asked about his thoughts on Stalin. That is Stalin - the mass murdering, sociopath former dictator of the Soviet Union, by the way.

"Next Scargill was asked by a listener about his views on JV Stalin: did he regard him as "a good socialist"?"

If Scargill had even a basic knowledge of his own political creed, then he would know that Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist, and therefore not a socialist. Yes, we’re getting into political semantics here, but socialists were not leftwing enough for Stalin. In fact, Stalin would have had Scargill arrested, locked up, tortured and then shot in the back of the head. Mind you, if I was a totalitarian dictator, I’d probably have Scargill arrested and shot as well.

""Arthur replied that he thought Stalin had been a "very good leader", especially during World War II."

A very good leader?! Presumably Pol Pot was a really good leader as well.

And World War Two was not exactly Stalin’s finest hour. The war began partly because he signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. Then, Stalin was utterly unprepared for the Nazi invasion. When it happened, Stalin suffered a nervous breakdown, and one of the reasons why the Nazis were able to plough so far into Russia was because Stalin was not ready and was, initially, not able to fight the war. And the Soviet campaign was not one of heroism and audacious warfare. It was a war of attrition, pure and simple. One of the reasons why the Soviet army kept on advancing is because the front line troops knew that if they turned round or retreated, their fellow Communists would gun them down just as freely as the Nazis.
It is difficult to have a "good war" as a leader, and all war leaders are open to criticism. But the Soviet victory in World War Two was despite Stalin, not because of him.

"It was true that he had committed "many, many errors", but, there again, "Churchill in Britain was also criticised"."

Interestingly, whilst you could criticise Churchill during the war, no-one could criticise Stalin until well after he died. That is because Churchill was a leader of a democracy. Where as Stalin was the same as Hitler – regarding any criticism of his leadership and personality cult as a crime deserving the death penatly.

"Campbell at this point mildly suggested that it was perhaps not Stalin's record as war leader that was the main issue. After all he stood accused of being a "mass murderer". Did Scargill think Churchill had killed more people than Stalin? And what about the gulags, the show trials? Yes, yes, said Arthur, but these "mistakes" must be seen in context."

Mass murder in context? Sheesh. It is difficult to put the murder of millions of people into perspective. But perhaps Scargill has revealed more than he realises about his own intentions than he realises. Maybe in Scargill land murder is ok, as long as it is pursing some sort of dysfunctional socialist utopia.

"Don't forget, "the problems of the Soviet Union were infinitely worse after Stalin than before his death"."

No, the problems of the Soviet Union were bad after Stalin died, but nowhere near as bad as during his reign. Because the mass murder and intentional starvation of large swathes of the population at least slowed down under Stalin’s successors, even if they didn’t stop. And, not being a socialist, I tend to see the lessening of starvation and mass murder as a good thing. Crazy, eh?

"As Scargill was unwilling to venture an opinion on whether Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Churchill"

Historical consensus on the number of people murdered by Stalin? Millions (possibly as many as 60 million). Historical consensus on the number killed by Churchill? Zero. It is therefore a tough question to answer, if you can’t count.

"Campbell tried another tack: who did our general secretary think was worse - Stalin or Thatcher? By now Scargill was really getting tied in knots. Until and unless he knew the truth, he could not go along with allegations against the former Soviet leader: "If people were killed, or put into concentration camps, it was wrong.""

What evidence does Scargill need?! The resurrection and confession of the long dead Soviet dictator? Nice clarification that killing and concentration camps are wrong. It does say something that Scargill had to make that clarification, though.

"Arthur conceded that Stalin may have done those things, but he knew that Thatcher had "destroyed our manufacturing industry, people's hope"."

Destroying the manufacturing industry is on a par with mass murder and the elimination of a political class in the world of Scargill.

"The listener who had originally asked the question compared Scargill's response to the holocaust-denial of David Irving."

Which is a very nice comparison. I rather think that Scargill would be disgusted with the crimes of Hitler, but tacitly accepts the murders of Stalin et al, simply because Stalin’s opinions are closer to his. Nothing like being a two faced bastard, is there?

"Scargill did, however, state that he had always opposed the restrictions on travelling abroad that the USSR had imposed."

Apparently mass murder is ok, restricting travel isn’t. The mind boggles.

The world according to Scargill – a world where Stalin made "some mistakes". Proof (if anyone really needs further proof) that socialists live in a parallel world that has no connection with reality.

Why Socialism Means Dictatorship

Over at Jackart’s place there has been some fierce debate over socialism versus capitalism, mainly with those of a right-wing disposition taking on the laughably naïve Sugarhoney. Now political ideology is something I have studied extensively, so I thought I would throw a couple of thoughts into the debate.

Jackart writes “Socialism is Communism writ small”, which is pretty much spot on. Both socialism and communism want to achieve the same aim – the end of the capitalist way of life (and, btw, liberal democracy). Their key disagreements lie in how that is to be achieved. Communism (as created by the hopelessly wrong Karl Marx) sees the end of capitalism occurring because of a violent revolution and a subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat*. Socialism, as advocated not only by purists such as Eduard Bernstein but also all those of a Social Democratic ilk, sees the creation of the socialist state through piecemeal reform and through undemocratic, economically damaging institutions such as Trade Unions. The means are different – the end is the same. The end of capitalism and, as a result, dictatorship and society based on misery for all.

See, the problem with socialist and communist ideology comes down to their perceptions of human nature. They see human beings as, in some way, perfectible. They think that, given the right circumstances, human beings will be reborn as generous, giving beings who are happy to make every effort in all parts of their life to share the proceeds with their neighbour, regardless of what the neighbour has done. In the crushingly naïve view of the socialist, the perfected human will be more than happy to adhere to the Marxist maxim “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”

Of course, people don’t work like that. Humans are capable of acts of great goodness and generosity. They are also capable of acts of extreme selfishness and greed. The instinct of humanity is to get the best for the individual and the individual’s loved ones. If strangers can be happy as well, all well and good – but the happiness of others is not the main motivating factor of the average human. People want to acquire, and they want to have their efforts rewarded. The only way that you can fight that instinct is through the state interfering and compelling people towards the more socialist way of thinking. That is why thousands of kulaks starved in Stalin’s collective farms. Stalin tried to compel them to be communists. In doing so, he forced them to act against their instincts, removed their freedom and led to many of them dying.

Jackart also writes:

“Fascism is merely a better dressed form of communism. So does it matter whether its the Jews or the Kulaks who got exterminated - Surely they're both still people? Both creeds are equally evil.”

I would agree with this as well. We have to stop thinking about this debate as being between right and left. It isn’t. It is the difference between freedom and state control. The only real difference between socialism/communism and fascism/Nazism** is the ideology they pay lip service to. They both take the chance to interfere in the lives of their people, they both remove the freedom of the citizens in an attempt to make them conform to an idealised and incorrect view of humanity. I always find it very telling that Nazism is, technically, National Socialism. Socialism with a Nationalist bent. The far ends of the political spectrum are Libertarianism (be it capitalist or anarchist) and Dictatorship (be it socialist, communist or fascist).

Basically you’ve got a choice. You can have a society where everyone is free to go out and make the best of their lives, in what ever subjective way in which the citizens view success. Some will be happy, some won’t. But that have, to a large extent, the choice. Or you can have a society where the government tries to control every element of the citizens’ life and where everyone is equally miserable, barring the tiny ruling elite. Liberal Capitalism versus Socialism – the choice is literally as stark as freedom versus dictatorship.

Therefore, if you are a socialist – like Sugarhoney and the glaringly ignorant Terry Kelly - you are not a democrat and you support dictatorship and misery.

Quite simple when you sit down and think about it, really.

*And please don’t tell me that Lenin, Stalin and all the other bastards who ran the Soviet Union were some sort of departure from classic Marxism. They aren’t. Everything they did – every evil, brutal act – was explicitly condoned by Marx by him advocating of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. And don’t give me “oh, well, Lenin et al weren’t members of the working class”. That may be the case, but Marx explicitly stated that the working class would be joined by members of the other classes as the violent revolution drew near – middle class people like Lenin would become part of the proletariat as the dictatorship of the proletariat loomed.
**Aside from the fact that communism has a far higher death toll. I’m not condoning Nazism of the Holocaust in anyway, but fundamentally murdering someone in a concentration camp is the same as murdering someone in a Gulag. The crime is the same – murder. And I am disgusted by murder in whatever form it takes, regardless of the ideology or reasoning behind it.