In his 2023 book "In Defence of Capitalism," Dr. Rainer Zitelmann chronicles in painstaking detail how much Western elites were enamored with Lenin and Stalinism—despite the naked violence.
And the irony is that Stalin loathed such "liberals" and, had he the chance, would have had them shot or sent to the camps: Trotsky, Kamenev, Zionoviev, Radek and every resident of Silver Springs, Maryland.
Socialists love to 'cherry-pick.' They'll talk about how well socialism supposedly looks on paper, and to many, it looks well-organized in theory. They'll also give "instances" in which it purportedly has worked.
Not only will they refuse to talk about the near-universal negative implications of socialism; they'll pretend that, this time, they'll get it 'right' since what was tried before wasn't "real socialism."
But as we've seen time and again, there's a difference between theory and practice, and that goes beyond the economic sphere. In practice, mass starvation and murder are two of many negative outcomes of socialism, and they're common denominators in any country that's tried it.
The reasoning? It's a system that requires coercion as an ingredient, no matter how benign socialists pretend to make coercion.
As a lay student of WW2 history for 50+ years, I still remain amazed at how the western media and some politicos framed Stalin as Uncle Joe in an effort to get Americans to support the Russians in the war effort. Softening and humanizing that monster is a stain on the MSM that predates the current state of almost incomprehensible malevolance.
And the irony is that Stalin loathed such "liberals" and, had he the chance, would have had them shot or sent to the camps: Trotsky, Kamenev, Zionoviev, Radek and every resident of Silver Springs, Maryland.
Socialists love to 'cherry-pick.' They'll talk about how well socialism supposedly looks on paper, and to many, it looks well-organized in theory. They'll also give "instances" in which it purportedly has worked.
Not only will they refuse to talk about the near-universal negative implications of socialism; they'll pretend that, this time, they'll get it 'right' since what was tried before wasn't "real socialism."
But as we've seen time and again, there's a difference between theory and practice, and that goes beyond the economic sphere. In practice, mass starvation and murder are two of many negative outcomes of socialism, and they're common denominators in any country that's tried it.
The reasoning? It's a system that requires coercion as an ingredient, no matter how benign socialists pretend to make coercion.
Coincidentally, I'm rereading "Why Orwell Matters" (Hitchens).
Orwell realized, AT THE TIME, that socialism usually led to despotism. Lefties back then refused to admit that, and they still do.
As a lay student of WW2 history for 50+ years, I still remain amazed at how the western media and some politicos framed Stalin as Uncle Joe in an effort to get Americans to support the Russians in the war effort. Softening and humanizing that monster is a stain on the MSM that predates the current state of almost incomprehensible malevolance.
Hayek demonstrated in his book The Road to Serfdom how too much government management in what should be private leads to tyranny.
Sorry Jon, Ben Burgis was right - true socialism has never been tried. As Bernie Sanders declared, we need “democratic socialism”.