Wehrwolfen
Senior Member
- May 22, 2012
- 2,750
- 340
By Kelly OConnell
March 10, 2013
Having covered the origins of leftism in the initial article in this two-part series, lets recap. Liberalism was originally named for its chief aimas a philosophy based upon liberty, which is now known as Classical Liberalism. The roots of this worldview stretch back to classical paganism. In An Intellectual History of Liberalism, Pierre Manent generally describes Liberalism as the basso continuo of modern politics, of the politics of Europe and the West for about the past three centuries. In other words, it is our foundational societal theory. Yet, now the term liberalism has been co-opted by socialism.
Ralph Raico describes the original idea:
Classical liberalism is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade including freedom of contract and exchange and the free disposition of ones own labor, is given a high priority. Historically, liberalism has manifested a hostility to state action, which, it insists, should be reduced to a minimum.
II. Debacles of New Liberalism
Are Socialism and its big brother, Marxism, an effective means of organizing society and creating prosperity and happiness? No, but this has been well-known for decades. There are no known successes in socialist countriesonly failures. Further, somewhere between 100-200 million humans were needlessly slaughtered in communist countries. Here is an expose of four of the most notable communist regimes of the last 50 years.
A. USSR, B. China, C. Vietnam, D. Cuba,
Conclusion
The main reason socialism fails as an economic theory is it does not account for price of commodities, and therefore cannot adequately ration any finite good. Further, socialism fails on a psychological level because it treats human motivation as a perverse fiction, irrelevant for producers, and therefore ignored. Finally, it fails as a political theory because it cannot value humans as being any different than machines.
March 10, 2013
Having covered the origins of leftism in the initial article in this two-part series, lets recap. Liberalism was originally named for its chief aimas a philosophy based upon liberty, which is now known as Classical Liberalism. The roots of this worldview stretch back to classical paganism. In An Intellectual History of Liberalism, Pierre Manent generally describes Liberalism as the basso continuo of modern politics, of the politics of Europe and the West for about the past three centuries. In other words, it is our foundational societal theory. Yet, now the term liberalism has been co-opted by socialism.
Ralph Raico describes the original idea:
Classical liberalism is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade including freedom of contract and exchange and the free disposition of ones own labor, is given a high priority. Historically, liberalism has manifested a hostility to state action, which, it insists, should be reduced to a minimum.
II. Debacles of New Liberalism
Are Socialism and its big brother, Marxism, an effective means of organizing society and creating prosperity and happiness? No, but this has been well-known for decades. There are no known successes in socialist countriesonly failures. Further, somewhere between 100-200 million humans were needlessly slaughtered in communist countries. Here is an expose of four of the most notable communist regimes of the last 50 years.
A. USSR, B. China, C. Vietnam, D. Cuba,
Conclusion
The main reason socialism fails as an economic theory is it does not account for price of commodities, and therefore cannot adequately ration any finite good. Further, socialism fails on a psychological level because it treats human motivation as a perverse fiction, irrelevant for producers, and therefore ignored. Finally, it fails as a political theory because it cannot value humans as being any different than machines.
