Socialism as Religion

 

Years ago, I got into a discussion about the “tragedy of the commons” (that is, the overexploitation of unowned resources) with a socialist. I cited the fact that elephant herds were growing in African nations in which tribes could own the herds, while they were shrinking in nations that did not allow ownership. Elephants often destroy crops, so tribes have little incentive to protect them and every incentive to kill them. If they own the elephants, however, and can use them as a resource, the incentives change.

The socialist’s response was that he would rather elephants go extinct than such majestic creatures be owned by anyone. He didn’t respond when I suggested that elephants might have a different take on the issue.

How do you reason with people who would rather a species – perhaps even the human species – go extinct than that their aesthetic sensibilities be offended?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 37 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Black Prince (View Comment):

    Keith Rice (View Comment):

    Black Prince (View Comment):

    So-called “conservatism” (aka. neo-liberalism) is also a religion (the god is Mammon) and will result in equally disastrous results as socialism.

    Yet none of my conservative friends have any lust of money, most of us live modest but industrious lives.

    Perhaps they’re not as “conservative” (neo-liberal) as you think they are.

    Prince – what’s the alternative then?

    • #31
  2. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    quikwit (View Comment):

    The socialist’s response was that he would rather elephants go extinct than such majestic creatures be owned by anyone. He didn’t respond when I suggested that elephants might have a different take on the issue.

    I’d love to hear his take on slavery.

     People will take outlandish and absurd positions when they’re losing an argument.  (Egos are easily bruised.)

     If my experience is any guide, down the road, after your interlocutor has forgotten the specifics of the argument, he may come back and school you, repeating your words back to you as if he thought of them. 

    • #32
  3. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Black Prince (View Comment):

    Keith Rice (View Comment):

    Black Prince (View Comment):

    So-called “conservatism” (aka. neo-liberalism) is also a religion (the god is Mammon) and will result in equally disastrous results as socialism.

    Yet none of my conservative friends have any lust of money, most of us live modest but industrious lives.

    Perhaps they’re not as “conservative” (neo-liberal) as you think they are.

    Prince – what’s the alternative then?

    @blackprince —  Remember, socialists have been talking about how this is “late capitalism“, about to collapse, since at least the 1860s.  My Econ 101 textbook, back in the early seventies, explained how the Soviet Union had a higher growth rate than the US.  Meanwhile, the classical liberal economists I read on my own time said this was nonsense and propaganda, and the Soviet Union was headed for collapse. 

    Circa 1990, the best-selling socialist economist, Robert Heilbroner, wrote two essays in the New Yorker, in which he was forced to admit he had been wrong about economics his entire life, and the classical liberals had been right all along.

    Basically, 19th century leftists had made up the term “capitalism“ as a pejorative way to refer to real economics; while “socialism“ was a nice-sounding way to refer to their fantasy economics.   In the 20th century, they got to apply their fantasy economics to real countries, with the usual result being millions of people starving to death. 

    • #33
  4. Keith Rice Inactive
    Keith Rice
    @KeithRice

    Taras (View Comment):

    @blackprince — Remember, socialists have been talking about how this is “late capitalism“, about to collapse, since at least the 1860s. My Econ 101 textbook, back in the early seventies, explained how the Soviet Union had a higher growth rate than the US. Meanwhile, the classical liberal economists I read on my own time said this was nonsense and propaganda, and the Soviet Union was headed for collapse.

    Circa 1990, the best-selling socialist economist, Robert Heilbroner, wrote two essays in the New Yorker, in which he was forced to admit he had been wrong about economics his entire life, and the classical liberals had been right all along.

    Basically, 19th century leftists had made up the term “capitalism“ as a pejorative way to refer to real economics; while “socialism“ was a nice-sounding way to refer to their fantasy economics. In the 20th century, they got to apply their fantasy economics to real countries, with the usual result being millions of people starving to death.

    @taras, while doing research for a popular textbook (ver. 4) on sustainable economics I came upon some interesting articles. One explained that Western economists had pegged the USSR economy (GDP per capita) at 50% of the US but after the fall of the USSR it was found to be closer to 25%.

    The professor writing the textbook was a Marxist, however, and wouldn’t accept my use of the article which also wrote of how certain social institutions are a necessary foundation for economic success … explaining why so many countries can’t be helped.

    • #34
  5. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Recommend #4

    Fascinating interview !

     

    • #35
  6. Keith Rice Inactive
    Keith Rice
    @KeithRice

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    Keith Rice (View Comment):
    One of the most remarkable elements of the socialist mind is the inability to recognize, or even believe in human nature.

    Progressives style themselves the “party of science.” One supposes, then, that they believe in evolution. Do they really believe that a process of iterative “survival-of-the-fittest” would result in a “human nature” that leaves people so dysfunctional that they need Progressives to make every decision for them? And if so, why do Progressives believe that they transcend this dysfunction and are capable of dictating others’ lives?

    Of course they only cherry pick which science they believe in and when it benefits their war against traditional beliefs. Worst may be the very fuzzy sciences of sociology and psychology and, as it turns out, meteorology, fields rife with Leftists going back decades using poor methodology to verify their assumptions.

    At this point when I’m having a discussion with a Leftist who brings up “scientific conclusions” I regret that I generally have to dismiss them as “fake” science.

    • #36
  7. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Keith Rice (View Comment):

    Richard Fulmer (View Comment):

    Keith Rice (View Comment):
    One of the most remarkable elements of the socialist mind is the inability to recognize, or even believe in human nature.

    Progressives style themselves the “party of science.” One supposes, then, that they believe in evolution. Do they really believe that a process of iterative “survival-of-the-fittest” would result in a “human nature” that leaves people so dysfunctional that they need Progressives to make every decision for them? And if so, why do Progressives believe that they transcend this dysfunction and are capable of dictating others’ lives?

    Of course they only cherry pick which science they believe in and when it benefits their war against traditional beliefs. Worst may be the very fuzzy sciences of sociology and psychology and, as it turns out, meteorology, fields rife with Leftists going back decades using poor methodology to verify their assumptions.

    At this point when I’m having a discussion with a Leftist who brings up “scientific conclusions” I regret that I generally have to dismiss them as “fake” science.

     A progressive scientist is a progressive first and a scientist second; just as a progressive journalist is a progressive first and a journalist second.  Progressive goals are simply more important than telling the truth.

     It’s pretty funny. We constantly talk about how Galileo was put under house arrest 400 years ago.  We never talk about the thousands of Soviet biologists who were persecuted, some of them to death, just 80 years ago. 

     I sometimes wonder, what if Marx had concocted his crackpot theories in the 1860s instead of the 1840s.  Perhaps he would have taken some account of Darwin’s theory.  In reality, by the time Darwin published his work, Marx’s doctrines had already hardened into dogma. 

    • #37
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.