Socialism is Based on a Philosophy of Death

by | Mar 23, 2015

We Would Not Have Killed 1.7 Million People in our Agrarian Utopia


“I saw Duch kneel in front of the trees where Khmer Rouge soldiers smashed children to death,” a policeman told reporters after the four-hour tour…

About 14,000 people — including a few foreigners accused of being CIA spies — went into the jail to be tortured into confessing to working against a regime deemed responsible for the deaths of 1.7 million people…

Tuol Sleng is now a shrine to those killed by the Khmer Rouge, who also eradicated potential opponents of their back to “Year Zero” revolution to produce an agrarian utopia through overwork, starvation and disease… [source]

Irrational ideas will lead to failure in practice (by failure I mean anything that is anti-life such as death, misery, and suffering).

For example, if I said that my philosophy holds that one must drink poison everyday, would you be shocked if it led to death amongst its adherents? If my philosophy held that based on the writings of an ancient tribe, I believe that if someone is bleeding to death they must step on a cucumber and throw salt on a ram’s horns, would you be shocked if it led to death amongst its adherents? Would success or failure depend on who was in charge? In fact, doesn’t it follow that only to the extent that the ideas were not followed could you even continue living? If any philosophy is irrational, then mustn’t it lead to failure in practice just as in my examples? In fact, isn’t it true that an idea that is bad in theory should logically lead to a bad result and an idea that is good in theory should lead to success?

Yet, how many times have you heard the following arguments:

  • “Socialism is good in theory but bad in practice…” or a variant of this argument is “when Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. killed hundreds of millions of people, they weren’t really practicing true socialism…”
  • Those environmentalists who are quoted as calling for mass human death in order to save the ecosystem are just extremists who don’t represent the true environmentalists who just want to pick up cans and see pretty flowers in parks. The ones who call for human death or blow up science labs or spike trees, etc. are “well-intentioned idealists” but “impractical”
  • German’s who voted for the Nazis were shocked and appalled that the Nazi regime had been maintaining concentration camps where over 6 million people were systematically murdered insisting that the Nazi regime’s actions did not represent the goals of true National Socialism (Nazism)…
  • The imposition of oppressive theocracies over the past 2000 years resulting in the subjugation of independent thinking, misery and poverty for its subjects was made by those who misinterpreted or distorted the true word of God. If people understood and followed what the Bible truly says then we would live in a literal Garden of Eden” or a variant is “people are sinners and can not live up to perfection…

A more concrete example which is a sub-set of the socialism example might be:

  • “Government intervention in the economy (welfare, social security, universal health care, price controls, etc.) to redistribute the wealth of those who have earned it for the sake of those who have not doesn’t work in practice, results in catastrophe, and usually harms most the people it is intended to help but we’ll keep trying because egalitarianism is noble in theory…”

Note that in each case when people actually act on such ideas, mass death and misery result, yet the believers in such ideas simply assert that it wasn’t implemented correctly or that the idea is “good in theory” but man is inherently incapable of living up to such noble ideals. We are led to believe that if only the right people were to implement socialism, communism, environmentalism, theocracy, or if man could be “better” then these ideas when implemented would not lead to suffering and mass death. Yet, it always does lead to mass death and suffering. It is never questioned whether the idea really is “good in theory” nor is the “good” ever defined.

The success or failure of such philosophies in reality is not dependent on who implements it. If a philosophy is not true, then to the extent anyone actually tries to practice it then it must fail. Failure in practice is logically required of any philosophy that is untrue. For example, a policy upholding “sacrifice” of the productive to the unproductive is suicidal and has to lead to mass destruction and death. A philosophy based on the premise that it is virtuous for man to sacrifice himself will lead to people sacrificing themselves or to its leaders sacrificing its subjects which results in death and destruction. A philosophy that regards individual reason and the pursuit of knowledge as evil will result in ignorance and a society mired in superstition, primitivism, and the rule of brute force. There is no magic formula or dictator that will change these facts.

So, what makes these particular philosophies irrational? At their base, every ideology either explicitly or implicitly contains a view of man’s nature. This view gives rise to an explicit or implicit ethical theory and ultimately a political theory. One logically leads to the other. If any of these premises is false then the following premise must be invalid.

Take Socialism for example. What is Socialism? To quote Ayn Rand:

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same. [source]

Now if this characterization of Socialism is accurate, which I believe it is, what in the hell is “good in theory” about it? One must produce in order to survive. If someone can take whatever you produce by force then you are a slave by definition and you would have no means to maintain your own survival. In what sense can a society of slaves be considered a “utopia” and those who pursue it labeled as “idealists”? Quoting Ayn Rand:

Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.

The essential ideas of socialism contradict man’s fundamental nature. Logically, because socialism denies property rights and therefore all rights, it must be imposed on individuals by force. So, to the extent one tries to practice “true” socialism it must lead to tyranny and suffering as witnessed in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba, Mao’s China, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, etc.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

So why do people hold that Socialism is “good in theory”? Because it is consistent with the dominant morality of our culture: altruism. Altruism is the idea that self-sacrifice is the good and that one should live their life for the sake of others. This should not be confused with benevolence or generosity. Altruism is the idea that one is good to the extent that one gives up more than one gets. If one gets an equal value for helping a loved one that is not sacrifice but essentially a fair trade. If one let’s their loved one die in order to help someone they do not care about or even despise then it is a sacrifice.

The moral theory of altruism is the basis of the slogan “socialism is good in theory.” Altruism is literally a philosophy of death. Man must act in his self-interest to the extent he wishes to live. Breathing is a selfish act. Eating is a selfish act. Keeping and using the product of your work is selfish. Love is selfish unless you hate your spouse. To the extent you practice altruism you will tend to die. Therefore, upholding altruism as a moral ideal once again puts man at odds with his nature. Under altruism, to the extent you wish to live and be happy you are not moral, and to the extent you sacrifice and are miserable you are supposedly moral. Socialism is consistent with altruism as a moral ideal and that is why it is considered “good in theory” despite the practical arguments against it:

The socialists had a certain kind of logic on their side: if the collective sacrifice of all to all is the moral ideal, then they wanted to establish this ideal in practice, here and on this earth. The arguments that socialism would not and could not work, did not stop them: neither has altruism ever worked, but this has not caused men to stop and question it. Only reason can ask such questions—and reason, they were told on all sides, has nothing to do with morality, morality lies outside the realm of reason, no rational morality can ever be defined.

The fallacies and contradictions in the economic theories of socialism were exposed and refuted time and time again, in the Nineteenth Century as well as today. This did not and does not stop anyone: it is not an issue of economics, but of morality. The intellectuals and the so-called idealists were determined to make socialism work. How? By that magic means of all irrationalists: somehow.

The notion of sacrifice was put into practice quite explicitly by the Nazis (which stands for National Socialists in German). Quoting Dr. Leonard Peikoff (same link as above):

The Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, socialism. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. “Socialism” for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism—in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

“To be a socialist,” says Goebbels, “is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”

By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.

If altruism is antithetical to man’s nature and results in death, chaos, and misery then why is it upheld as the good? The key was alluded to in the quote above. Morality is considered to be beyond reason or put another way, human reason is not considered valid by modern philosophers or religionists. Modern philosophers tell us there is no truth or certainly no absolutes in the realm of morality and accept altruism by default. Religious thinkers tell us that morality can be defined absolutely but through faith not reason, i.e., by reference to sacred scriptures or commandments from God. In major religions, the good consists of sacrificing on behalf of God and therefore Jesus, the various saints, and priests are upheld as moral ideals or exemplars of sacrifice. Socialism tells us to sacrifice for the proletariat. Environmentalism tells us to sacrifice for the earth. Religionists tell us to sacrifice for God. In each case, the essential philosophy is the same. All that changes is the recipient of the sacrifice.

So if sacrifice is the good and selfishness is evil then what system can all of these philosophies agree is absolutely evil? What one system requires selfishness, rewards success, and punishes failure? What system results in wealth being obtained in proportion to an individual’s effort and not through sacrifice? What system demands rationality, independent thinking, and relies not on individual sacrifice but on trading to the mutual advantage of both parties? In other words, what system is most consistent with man’s nature? And what system over a brief period has produced wealth, prosperity, and happiness on a scale unparalleled in human history? Capitalism.

Let me finish with a series of quotes from Ayn Rand:

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered).

The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang. In order to survive under such a system, men have no choice but to fear, hate, and destroy one another; it is a system of underground plotting, of secret conspiracies, of deals, favors, betrayals, and sudden, bloody coups. [source]

Doug Reich blogs at the The Rational Capitalist with commentary, analysis, and links upholding reason, individualism, and capitalism.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.


  1. And the philosophy of death on which socialism is based is also the same philosophy of death on which supernaturalism is based: belief in primacy of consciousness deity or deities (vs. that of a super collective), an emotionalist epistemology of faith (vs. ditto) and a suicide ethics (vs. ditto).

    Socialism is but religion’s bastard child.

  2. No it is not! It is based on life. Were ever capitalism has run amok it has had the hand of a dictator to keep the workers in line. Hitler is the prime example but there are a lot more in world history. So we will sing the songs of Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger. We will fight the bosses at every turn. We will fight for justice. In the end Karl Marx will be right, Capitalism will collapse on itself.

  3. Uh, er, um, Hitler and the Nazis were National Socialists.

    Here’s their moral philosophy from Der Fuhrer’s mouth:

    “It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual….”

    “This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture…. The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call–to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness–idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men” (Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Buckeburg, Germany, Oct. 7, 1933, explaining the moral philosophy of Nazism).

    And here’s the guy from whom he go it–a hero to Guthrie & Seeger:

    “The best ordered state will be one in which the largest number of persons … most nearly resembles a single person. The first and highest form of the State … is a condition in which the private and the individual is altogether banished from life, and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and blame and feel joy and sorrow on the same occasion, and whatever laws there are unite the city to the utmost …” (Plato’s _Republic_ & _Laws_ c. 370 BCE)

    As for Marx–a Platonist as well–given the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (& the 20 or so million the Soviets exterminated along the way), I’d say Marx has been relegated to the ash tray of history–ash can being much too large for the likes of him. Of course, that excludes academe, of which I’m sure your an assiduous graduate, you command of spelling giving you away.

    Just a A Little A’ This ‘N’ That to edumicate you.

  4. Guess you did not listen to the song. ( All you Fascists bound to lose. ) And they did and we are still looking for the rest. We will get them.
    The nazis were nationalists. You were to be white and 100% German. That is NOT Scholisem. If you were business you got the good things. If you were a worker you got killed. Now under Uncle Joe, if you were a worker you taken care of cradle to grave!!! If you were some big industrialist you got the same as the worker. I know if I had to chose one of the two I will take Uncle Joe.

  5. “I will take Uncle Joe.”

    And you’d be dead.

    Uncle Joe made Hitler look like an amateur, starving 10 million Kulaks–not to mention the purges within the Soviet Union itself and those nations behind Russia’s Iron Curtain–beginning with those murdered along the Berlin Wall for trying to escape East Germany.

    From a quick Google search: (

    Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin’s Forced Famine 1932-33
    The History Place – Genocide in the 20th Century … Stalin believed any future insurrection would be led by the Kulaks, thus he proclaimed a policy aimed at …

    Ukraine Famine | United Human Rights Council
    The wealthier farmers were termed as “kulaks”, and became the primary target of “dekulukization … ..

    Stalin killed millions. A Stanford historian answers the ……/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310.html
    Sep 23, 2010 – Naimark, author of the controversial new book Stalin’s Genocides, argues … the kulaks (who were higher-income farmers), and the subsequent …

    Hitler executed millions of “whites,” i.e., Caucasians–Jews, slavs, Germans, etc.–and despised capitalism, as did the Italian fascists; but the Nazis were not fascists, they were socialists with a nationalistic bent. The above quote by Hitler indicates the Nazis embraced the opposite of capitalism’s self-interest.

    The Nazi’s attitude toward business was, essentially, that the corporation was an extension of the State. What the state commanded, business would do. Or else. Different from socialism’s outright nationalization, the Nazis merely put a gun to the head of businessmen and then “asked” them to do as they were told.

    But if you need additional information:

    “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler (Toland, John (1976). Adolf Hitler. Doubleday. pp. 224–225).

    “The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences” (Bendersky, Joseph W. A History of Nazi Germany: 1919–1945. 2nd ed. Burnham Publishers, 2000. p. 72).

    “Nazi propaganda posters in working class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said: ” ‘The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism’ ” ( Ibid; pp. 58–59).

    “Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism,
    arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class” (Overy, R.J., The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004. p. 399).

    Fascists, Nazis or Marxists, all three systems make claim that the State owns the individual and can dispose of him at its (the State’s) whim. Generally, the first to go are those artists who won’t goose step to the State’s tune. That is the reality, rather than sentimentality, of Statism.

    Guthrie & Seeger–and you–would be among the first to be executed under Statism. For you see, under statism, ‘this land is [the State’s] land.’ Not yours.

    Educate yourself. You’re words reveal an ignorant, dogmatic mind.

  6. Good morning.
    Pretty good article.
    My pet summation is that altruism claims one’s morality approaches perfection as one’s self concern approaches zero. Should we all practice this evil calculus perfectly, all would die. Men are perfect when dead.
    As before though, the primacy of a consciousness-less existence position makes the dependability and status of your own mind very much dependent on the characteristics you by faith ascribe to this primary mindless existence – the stuff. This is fine as far as it goes, but does not arrive at clean reason by a long shot.
    I think you can stick with this faith in stuff, as it were, and admit it, or someone (probably not you) can point to where a religion has been Co-opted by irrational force wielders and point to a theism that describes a primary consciousness that created a rational existence very much like Rand’s description.

  7. Wrong number, Russell.

  8. You are casting pearls before swine, I fear.

  9. Perhaps. Or I’m butchering swine before they spread their muck. And I’m honing my argument, clarifying my own thoughts, &c., too, in the process.

    Two replies are sufficient to accomplish both. Three or more and, yeah, I’d be tossing those pearls into the hog trough.

    Thanks for the nod of support, though, Mr. P. ;o)

  10. Absolutely, and *I* for one certainly like reading your comments. Far be it from me to discourage you if you feel you benefit from this.

  11. Oh they sure did despised capitalism all right. They made sure that rich got richer and the worker got shot. They were the epitome of capitalism. They were the true meaning of capitalism. You think they loved Karl Marx ? Hitler could not stand Communism. Mussolini had them all killed on the spot. Even mention the word UNION and you were done for. That is Fascism 100%. Yes old Joe killed a lot of his enemies. But the Bolsheviks or the labor party did a good job on the bosses of old industry. Put them in a gunny sack and in a wheelbarrow and paraded them around the shop’s then dumped them into Moscow river. Bosses dumped in the river, how bad is that ?

  12. “Steel magnate Fritz Thyssen fled to Switzerland because he believed that Nazi planning was ‘Bolshevising’ Germany. Factory manager Victor Kravchenko defected in 1943 because he found that class privilege and the exploitation of labour in Stalinist society were no better than the worst excesses of capitalism.” –The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia by Richard Overy


    “There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will.” –Adolf Hitler; Hitler Speaks, Hermann Rauschning; London, T. Butterworth, 1940

    These conversations with Hitler took place in the last year before his seizure of power and the first two years (1933-34) of the National Socialist regime.


    “As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation’s economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence.” -chapter 12 of Mein Kampf


    “In the last analysis, there are only three great statesmen in the world, Stalin, I, and Mussolini. Mussolini is the weakest, for he has been unable to break the power of either the crown or the church. Stalin and I are the only ones who envisage the future and nothing but the future. Accordingly, I shall in a few weeks stretch out my hand to Stalin at the common German-Russian frontier and undertake the redistribution of the world with him.

    “Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter — with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me. ” –Adolf Hitler, August 22, 1939


    “Goebbels stood up to greet me. … He said one of the great accomplishments of the Hitler regime had been to win the German workers over almost totally to the national cause. We had made patriots of the workers, he said, as the Kaiser had dismally failed to do. This, he kept
    repeating, had been one of the real triumphs of the movement. We Nazis were a non-Marxist yet revolutionary party, anticapitalist, antibourgeois, antireactionary….”Starch-collared men like Chancellor Heinrich Bruening had called us the “Brown Bolsheviks,” and their bourgeois instincts were not wrong.”

    –Artur Axmann, Nazi youth leader, May 1, 1945 THE BUNKER (1978, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 261-262)


    Soviet Swastika

    “Union of Soviet Socialist Republic Swastikas appeared in the USSR Russia as a socialist symbol before the National Socialist German Workers’ Party existed.”

    From a Russian website–scroll to bottom of the page:

    Uncle Adolf & Uncle Joe




  13. Wrong everything, Russell. So ignorant and so dogmatic–and, perhaps, just a tiny bit anti-Semitic–is this creature, Russell Means, that one is sorely tempted to adopt the typical (New) Left response:

    “Shut up, Russell, I explained.”

  14. No I am not going to shut up at all. I will continue to work for dignity in the workplace, the respect of the worker, the right to confront the bosses, the right to a fair AND impartial hearing of all grievances and all settlements by a arbitrator. Now writby posted a long dissertation of Communism and Fascism. Oh there is a big difference and it all comes down to the workers. The battle between that even today go’s on. The battle between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. One of the things that stand out in the 10 commandments of the Communist party, is ( Free education for all children in public schools. The abolition of child labor. ) That is now in place. Thanks Karl.
    Now want to know a little about modern Russia ? Read the book ( A History of Modern Russia ) Robert Service. The Hammer Sickle lives on. Not at all anti-Semitic, Love the writing of Karl Marx.

  15. I stand corrected. You’re a brute, a gangster, a thug, Russell. Just like Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, whose ideas mirror most closely those of Islam.

    “We do not have time to play at ‘oppositions’ at ‘conferences.’ We will
    keep our political opponents… whether open or disguised as ‘nonparty,’
    in prison.”

    “We need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory.”

    Or like Mao.

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

    When your revolution succeeds, it would be fun seeing the look on your face, Russell, as you are taken out and shot by other, far smarter, far more ruthless thugs.

    If you decide to respond, continue with your emotialist assertions; refuting facts given is not your forte.

    And that’ll do it for me. I’ve wasted enough of my time.

  16. No, it is not. Hitler was a socialist who implemented socialism completely.

    Marxism is totalitarian in theory and practice. You will fight to destroy all those who want to live.

    You are a killer

  17. Fascism is a form of socialism so you are saying that capitalists are socialists.

    Your apology for the genocidal Stalin is disgusting.

  18. That does not even make sense

  19. You will continue to work for genocide.

  20. Well of course it does. Under the rule of the Tsar the worker was lowest on the totem pole. So Lenin and Troski rallied the working class to arms. Down went the Tsar and the workers paradise Communism came to power. Now all those workers had a big hate for the Bosses in the plants. They took over all of the plants and they chose there bosses. The old ones were put in gunny sacks two or three at a time. Paraded around the shops that they were working at and let the workers spit on them. Then when they were done, they were all dumped into the Moscow river. Now I am sure that there are a lot of workers in America that would love do the same to there bosses.

  21. capitalism has killed a billion plus people in the last two hundred years……. capitalism is pure evil atleast the commies declared war

  22. Satanism is a culture of death. THe Jews have a culture of death. OVer and over again. It’s all the same bullshit.

  23. Capitalism is economic freedom. Arguing against capitalism is arguing against freedom. I think I’d rather take my chances making my own decisions living life the way I choose than being under the thumb or a government employee asking permission for everything and fined, jailed or killed for non-compliance.
    Your claim is pure evil as it has no basis. You lie.

  24. capitalism is only two hundred years old with a billion plus deaths- capitalism is pure evil

  25. Freedom doesn’t kill people, oppression does. Perhaps you could add value by writing something refuting the above article instead repeating absurd lies like a typical leftist

  26. Capitalism is doomed with technology workers- no needed with automation and robotfication


  27. I see that the ideal vs reality problem is very serious for capitalism either. OK, you have good citations. But in reality we see brigandism instead of capitalism. And law and justice is just an another object of sale and purchase.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 9,000 articles online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Pin It on Pinterest