The truth of socialism:
A pseudo-religion, grounded in pseudo-science, and enforced by political might...
Equality, for example - the most ludicrous concept in an attempt to push socialism.
"Nobody is equal to anybody. Even the same man is not equal to himself, on different days."
Sowell.
“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”
Heraclitus.
....if these two very self evident, philosophical truths are to be accepted - then only only the true idiot (or the megalomaniac manipulator of men) would try to 'sell' the concept of 'equality' to people.
And only for nefarious purposes of controlling others.
That control over other, needs bureaucracy....
Socialism depends on bureaucracies.
It cannot function otherwise.
Bureaucracies are non productive entities that use up the resources from the productive elements in society.
They are by there very structure, parasitical in nature.
Socialism require's the bureaucracies to forcefully redistribute wealth - from the productive elements in society, to the non productive elements in society.
The parasitic class.
The decision making process of forced redistribution is thus enabled by centralized authorities.
As Hayek said:
"(central)...Planning always leads to dictatorship.”
This is without exception.
History shows this time and time, and time , again.
...From Lenin to Castro, promised basic freedoms such as free elections, a free press, free assembly, and religious freedom - none fulfilled these promises that were made before coming to power.
Why?
Because the very system of authoritarian, bureaucratic control, cannot allow for free thought and alternative perspectives!
Bureaucratic, centralized control, is a world without personal freedom or choice.
It is world of systems, of cold processes, one where the individual is NOT taken into account.
And the individual is the building block of society.
Without the individual first being recognized as being fundamentally, the most important part of the ecosystem - then collapse is sure to follow.
It is a society without real foundations.
Failed socialist experiments worldwide show this to be the case.
If a system cannot allow for the basic human rights of freedom of choice, to associate, to pursue better for themselves - then what kind of dystopian - unnatural - system, is it?
It's like creating a benevolent machine, that goes on to tell the creators of the said machine , how to then live...
That's called technocracy (communism by another name).
The basics of flawed thinking...
Socialism’s central philosophical weakness is that it depends on the intellectually lazy, (and economic parasite), Karl Marx.
Or so it would first appear at least....
My own thoughts....
My own, personal opinion, is that the third cousin to the banking giants - a family called the Rothschild's, was given enough money so as to be able to devote his time to writing (via Friedrich Engels , who was the son of a textile manufacturer).
Maybe.. just maybe ...
Marx was the intellectual giant that he's purported to be - and 'communism' was , in fact, the best intellectual lie that he could form into an ideology that the masses would swallow - one that would, inexorably, lead the world towards a one world - one bank - government - The Rothschild's...
End of my own thoughts concerning Karl Marx
Leaving aside my own skeptical view of Marx and his motives, lets continue....
Marx insisted that his version of the Hegelian dialectic—thesis, antithesis, synthesis - or cause - reaction solution - was purely scientific.
I.e A constant equation and without flaw.
He asserted that feudalism ( being replaced by capitalism) would be then replaced by socialism ,and then, ultimately - communism. He thought this to be an irreversible process. (yes, he really was that limited in his thinking if the narrative of his life's work is to believed).
He offered very little 'new' thinking, but he was excellent at intellectualizing and consolidating messy, ill formed concepts. (which fall to pieces under any kind of 'critical thinking' inspection).
...So, 200 years after the publication of “The Communist Manifesto,” capitalist systems are shown time and time again , to be the ones that succeed - albeit held back and corrupted by a century of the communist , Rothchild's, central banking system.
Imagine how the world would look without the decades of bureaucratic and wasteful corruption, of 'quasi communism' holding it back?
His 'Hegelian dialectic perspective' of the evolution in society was flawed - for one main reason.
....Quite a large flaw.
It did not encompass, and embrace, the human being, and all that goes with that.
...Such as ambition, caring, fortitude, and an inherent optimism towards life itself.
This is totally antithetical to communist dogma, which comprises of supporting uniformity, hailing the average, rewarding conformity, and a suppressing of the human spirit!
(Have you ever noticed how so many on 'the left' are nihilistic, negative, and pessimistic in their outlook?)
Maybe you haven't read Marx's work. Maybe you haven't studied his thoughts. Marx was quite an anarchist even though he didn't get along with the anarchists of his time and was too focused on party politics which was a mistake to me, but he had hope that the bureaucratic and military state would dissolve eventually under communism. Of course he was wrong because authoritarian monsters always avoided losing power. Any humans given some power become authoritative, or at least that is what it looks like through history.
Your ignorance about this is quite common from libertarian dogmatic people. This is what you are taught. Communism bad, evil, wrong, crap, whatever. But your critiques actually have intersections with communism. The most important one is the disapproval of parasites in society. For communism, the parasites are the capitalists. People that inherited wealth, people that take the value generated by others and increase their wealth by such exploitation.
So to you the parasites are only in the government and it seems that banks too. However, communists note this parasitic behavior in rich people who don't produce anything but just take advantage of the work of others.
So, yeah, I see how government can be parasitic, I see it in the country where I live. I also disapprove banks role of monopolizing debt and money. And I also disapprove any person that profits from the work of others. This last one is the only thing you don't mention in your text.
Part of the dogma you've been teached is that capitalism has worked wherever it has been seen. But I don't think you have any evidence on such claim. Never mind, that is just part of the "capitalism good, communism bad" dogma.
Definitely, soviet communism, chinese communism, cuban communism have failed in many aspects. I don't think that needs to be debated at all. I think every human systems is alwasy failing and it seems like we are just discovering that. And there is also dogma in some communist people, mostly about having hope on the figure of the state and also thinking the basic claim that "communism good, capitalism bad". It is very similar.
Karl marx's life was one of parasitism, so I guess he knows the subject well, unlike his understanding of the human being.
Free exchange (capitalism) is not parasitism, it's voluntary exchange.
And I also disapprove any person that profits from the work of others.
This is a natural dynamic found throughout the natural world, not just humans.
'Disapproving' about natural systems, says a lot....
I always wonder, when discussing with libertarian and fascists, if they are shitposting.
Natural systems and nature are also very popular concepts among far right. It calls for some sort of darwinist, malthusian thought. Nature becomes essence and pureness and whatever you want to defend from deviation and unnatural evils.
But, let's go along with that.
Nature is definitely not capitalist. Animals dont colect rent, they don't exploit other animals. Yeah, they may eat each other some times, but other times, they collaborate and exchange value in a mutualist way. I can see you actually think capitalism as some sort of mutualism. It would be great if it was that way but the more money a person accumulates, the more power they have.
Humans are part of natural systems. Actually when we forget that, we suffer a lot. Let's say, we build our houses where rivers grow when it rains a lot and eventually our house will flood. If we extract lots of carbon from the ground and burn it, the earth system will slightly change and we will suffer a lot. We are actually kind of worthless if you look at the natural system at planet scale. Humans do deviate or forget this connectedness with other non human systems. I wouldn't use nature essence as an argument in favor of communism of capitalism as it doesn't make much sense.
Capitalism, as Marx puts it, (his concept of capitalism is kind of outdated but the following is a general way to understand it) is buying stuff or services to resell them and make profit from that. Business owners buy labor and sell the product of labor taking from that value exchange. So when make money by reselling without adding value, you are stealing, according to Marx. That's the whole critique to capitalism. And it does not come from exclusively from Marx but from many thinkers in that time. Marx is kind of the scape goat. Natural systems don't have that, they don't even have money. Capitalism is a large deviation from (let's not say natural) non-human systems and you can easily see that in the most wealthy countries that have large cities with great comfort that usually taken as examples of capitalism success (say USA), away from non human systems.
Well, I have no plans to move to Cuba or Venezuela anytime soon...