Alexis De Tocquvill , on Socialism (1848) with two other long dead white men
Since socialism is a Utopian ideal and has never produced utopia, there has never been real socialism?
Perhaps the Marxist/Lennonist idology is a perfect system of human development. Yet is still impractical as humans themselves, are imperfect creatures.
I would like to present to Newstalkers the antidote to the slippery slope of state sponsored totalitarianism.
These are competing systems of belief, they are not really compatible with one another. It's up to us, to decide the path that we trod. Please, remember knowledge is power, and the mind really is a terrible thing to waste.
This is not my intellectual property!
It is the work of Alexis De Tocqueville. Sir William Blackstone, and John Stuart Mill.... sourced from oll.libertyfund.org. a free online library.
(Socialism) is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways.
“Tocqueville on Socialism” (1848)
NOTHING CAN be gained by not discussing issues which call into question the very roots of our society and which, sooner or later, must be faced. At the bottom of the amendment which is under consideration, perhaps unknown to its author but for me as clear as day, is the question of socialism. [Prolonged Sensation—Murmurs from the Left.]
Yes, gentlemen, sooner or later, the question of socialism, which everyone seems to fear and which no one, up to now, has dared treat of, must be brought into the open, and this Assembly must decide it. We are duty-bound to clear up this issue, which lies heavy upon the breast of France. I confess that it is principally because of this that I mount the podium today, that the question of socialism might finally be settled. I must know, the National Assembly must know, all of France must know—is the February Revolution a socialist revolution or is it not? [“Excellent!”]
It is not my intention to examine here the different systems which can all be categorized as socialist. I want only to attempt to uncover those characteristics which are common to all of them and to see if the February Revolution can be said to have exhibited those traits. Now, the first characteristic of all socialist ideologies is, I believe, an incessant, vigorous and extreme appeal to the material passions of man. [Signs of approval.]
Thus, some have said: “Let us rehabilitate the body”; others, that “work, even of the hardest kind, must be not only useful, but agreeable”; still others, that “man must be paid, not according to his merit, but according to his need”; while, finally, they have told us here that the object of the February Revolution, of socialism, is to procure unlimited wealth for all.
A second trait, always present, is an attack, either direct or indirect, on the principle of private property. From the first socialist who said, fifty years ago, that “property is the origin of all the ills of the world,” to the socialist who spoke from this podium and who, less charitable than the first, passing from property to the property-holder, exclaimed that “property is theft,” a ll socialists, all, I insist, attack, either in a direct or indirect manner, private property. [“True, true.”] I do not pretend to hold that all who do so, assault it in the frank and brutal manner which one of our colleagues has adopted. But I say that all socialists, by more or less roundabout means, if they do not destroy the principle upon which it is based, transform it, diminish it, obstruct it, limit it, and mold it into something completely foreign to what we know and have been familiar with since the beginning of time as private property. [Excited signs of assent.]
Now, a third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. [“Excellent.”] For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, [Further signs of assent.] to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom. [Lively assent.]
I have not entered into a discussion of the details of these systems. I have indicated what socialism is by pointing out its universal characteristics. They suffice to allow an understanding of it. Everywhere you might find them, you will be sure to find socialism, and wherever socialism is, these characteristics are met
http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/2667/Tocqueville_Socialism1848.pdf
Sir William Blackstone, “Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals” (1766)
“The rights of all mankind... may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property. ”
By the absolute rights of individuals, we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. But with regard to the absolute duties, which man is bound to perform considered as a mere individual, it is not to be expected that any human municipal law should at all explain or enforce them. For the end and intent of such laws being only to regulate the behaviour of mankind, as they are members of society, and stand in various relations to each other, they have consequently no concern with any other but social or relative duties. Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws.
http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/2475/Blackstone_AbsoluteRights1753.pdf
John Stuart Mill, “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual” (1859)
“When a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself ... there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, .that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. [Chap. 1 "Introductory"]
http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/2471/Mill_OnLiberty4.pdf
Tags
Who is online
129 visitors
Since socialism is a Utopian ideal and has never produced utopia, there has never been real socialism?
National Socialist German Workers ' Party leader Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with socialism?
source.....Boston University school of economics.
Joseph Stalin, leader of the union of soviet socialist republics had nothing to do with socialism?
How about Hugo Chavez, leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela , widely praised by the left in America? Did he have anything to do with socialism?
How does the present leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela , Nicolas Maduro misunderstand socialism?
Mao Zedong, nothing to do with communism.
Fidel Castro, not a communist in any stretch of the imagination.
Ho Che Minh not a communist. Remember, socialism is the path to communism.
Pol Pot definitively, not a communist
Both them dudes learned their communism in France, where no one at all understands communism.
What if it was not just bad luck or misfortune that produced the monsters listed above?
What if that is the kind of "great leader" that those systems produce?
Aristotle
Alexis de Tocqueville
HARRISON BERGERON
by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.