Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Men's Leather Watches Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums Explore Home Audio All-New Amazon Fire TV Subscribe & Save Valentine's Day Cards Knock snow out cold Amazon Gift Card Offer girls2 girls2 girls2  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Shop Now Sale
Customer Review

181 of 222 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars This is it., December 30, 2010
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism (Politically Incorrect Guides) (Paperback)
I just finished reading this book cover to cover... if you want THE best-packaged book that explains to you why socialism destroys civilizations, this is it. You cannot beat the price for knowledge and insight that government education fights hard to hide from you. A great complement to "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, and loaded with logical and empirical firepower that will make you invincible in debates...if you can remember all of it!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 35 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 21, 2011 6:20:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 21, 2011 6:21:04 PM PST
Mark Nakou says:
UNFORTUNATELY, it is unlikely that the people that SHOULD be reading it...will even LOOK at it.

The people that SHOULD be reading it, are impervious to knowledge. They believe it is everyone else that is wrong and no matter how much evidence or how many facts you flaunt under their noses, they wont budge on their ignorance.

Posted on Mar 15, 2011 4:00:24 PM PDT
B. Fuller says:
I skimmed through this text and didn't find any sustained discussions on socialist principles. Indeed, it seemed to focus on the sins of states in and affiliated with the Soviet regime. Where are the discussions of the social democratic (socialist-lite) successes? (Indeed, Western Europeans live longer than Americans and report higher levels of happiness.)

Also, social and historical perspectives were, as far as I could tell, superficial. The Soviet Union emerged from a feudal, czarist regime. Red China grew from a peasant rebellion against the ancient aristocratic guard of China. Cuba's communism was a negative reaction against massive imperialism on the part of the United States. These are points that I didn't find discussed in the text.

Also, where was it mentioned that Cubans, despite a 50+ year American embargo and repeated attempts to overthrow their regime, live about as long as Americans, in a virtual tie with Americans in health outcomes, and have shown no great interest in booting the Castros out. (Fidel makes public appearances in front of thousands and has never been killed.)

If I'm greatly wrong on these points, please let me know.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 5:02:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 15, 2011 5:05:05 PM PDT
Europe doesn't pay for its strategic defense and doesn't even pay the costs of its own socialist systems, forever in the red. The society is not efficient or as productive as it could be and people are often deprived of basic human rights of expression and self-defense to sustain the paranoid preservation of the central authority. You will see how unsustainable Europe is as the Muslims grow in numbers and exploit the system's flaws. Europeans live long like science experiments but to what end? They are controlled from start to finish. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

Blaming old regimes is like Obama blaming Bush, it is a victimologist clump of idle words that accomplishes nothing and only lasts so long. Any regime can overcome a bad history or disaster via free markets, even the worst recession can be overcome in the space of 1 or 2 years. From the end of slavery (what plight could be worse?) up until the 1930s black employment rates had achieved a margin over white employment until minimum wage laws incentivized discrimination. We haven't had truly free markets in decades if not a century, since the effects of war economies, an excess of regulations and price fixing (the meat of socialism according to this book), and the distortions of legal tender from the printing press.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 6:39:57 PM PDT
B. Fuller says:
There are several things I'd like to unpack here.

What constitutes strategic defense? Obviously natural resources are a primary concern. I don't see American power especially trying to boot out the Burmese juntas or any number of despots that facilitate the transfer of natural resources to the American continent. I doubt even you would make the case that global imperialism, which America very much exercises at present, is some sort of free-market mechanism.

And it's odd you bring up deficits in relation to all of this, considering as deregulation takes hold of economies, tax collection tends to go down, services go down, and deficits go up. I'd argue that's a natural outcome of governments trying to upkeep public spaces without the resources to do so. Europe tends to have lower levels of debt than America (yes, even before Obama). And their money actually goes toward the welfare of their citizens. A hunch chunk of our budget goes to the security state and the maintenance of debt substationally accumulated from maintaining by far the largest military in the world, with 11 or more aircraft carriers.

Canadians drive long distances as Americans do and speak the same language (usually), but Canadians are more fuel efficient, live in smaller homes, live longer than Americans, are a fuel exporter, have a health system available to all, and report far higher levels of happiness. They don't practice strategic security the way we do? Perhaps because they know how to live better live within their natural means.

On the point of Muslims in Europe: It was largely free-market internationalism that brought Muslim (cheap) labor to Europe. And it's also that ideology that's breaking down notions of European national identity (who claims the EU is socialistic or democratic?), which I find a shame.

Blaming old regimes is like Obama...? Really? Self-identifying American conservatives can't get enough of the red herring of the Soviet Union. They try to tar Marxian analysis with Soviet repression. Marx advocated a (non)state controlled by workers. Who claims the USSR was controlled by workers?

Price fixing? Price fixing in the during and shortly after WWII was very successful. If by price fixing you mean oligopolistic collusion to fix prices and otherwise take advantage of those with less power, you need to be railing against large sections of the US economy, not socialism.

Victimism is a real phenomenon, not one to be disparaged. The US has invaded many countries to our south, including several invasions of Cuba. To focus in on Cuba as a good example, we still hold onto Gitmo Bay based on a treaty signed over a hundred years ago by a US-supported dictator. Castro overthrew an American backed dictator. America has collectively punished the Cubans (for over 50 years) for not overthrowing Castro. Where's the distortion in that?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 7:09:00 PM PDT
This discussion is going to go nowhere because you are the socialist the book talks about.

Government is the only monopoly and the worst. When you do not comply with a company you do not receive its product. When you do not comply with the government you lose life and liberty. No company can absolutely forbid competition without force, which we know is the exclusive domain of the government. Services are none of the government's business because it exists only to protect life and property through the fidelity of mutual contract. In other words, its founding cause is human freedom, which is completely at odds with the socialist. The socialist doesn't employ the government for human freedom, s/he treats humans as a harvest from which to grow and sustain the government.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 7:24:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 15, 2011 7:25:22 PM PDT
B. Fuller says:
This discussion is going to go nowhere because you are the socialist the book talks about.

That is an incredibly childish sentence meant to silence discussion, isn't it, and I was taken aback by it. Read that sentence again and realize the emotional defenses you've taken on to ward off intruding ideas.

Companies? Companies are a farce. They're associations of private capital meant to steamroll lesser organizations (and individuals, of course). For some relativity, bank at a commercial bank and bank at a credit union. See a bit of difference, baby steps.

Also, I don't hate to disillusion you, so I'll let you in on a secret: Marx supported the abolition of the state. Indeed, during Marx's life, state security forces in Europe were after him.

"Services are none of the government's business because it exists only to protect life and property through the fidelity of mutual contract."

To protect life? Evidentally, to the exception of health policies that actually make for longer, healthier lives. Your protection of life argument breaks down based on experience post-Locke. And, you're caught up in this idea of protecting a plot of land (only yours because the government gives you a deed that says so, to the exclusion of any other claimants) from peasants and Natives. Well, we killed the Natives and the American peasants are so demoralized that they can't even find Iraq on a map. And if you don't have a lot of property to protect from others, you may just be delusional.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 11:02:47 AM PDT
vertigone says:
Good points on both sides here. I tend to think that socialism is often (wrongly) portrayed as a yes or no question when, in fact, it is a more or less question. Just like Spinal Tap's amplifiers, socialism and capitalism both go to 11. I don't relish the idea of hearing Spinal Tap at 11 this morning, and I woudn't want to see the US turn socialism up to that volume either.

That being said, I believe that it (socialism) is far closer to a rather muted 3, loud enough, apparently, for the average American to hear over the cacophony of capitalism which has become stuck on 11 again, with no FDR to turn it down.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2011 10:16:17 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2011 3:02:12 PM PDT
maxamillia says:
B. Niece-- your zombie ignorance is appalling. That the producers and creators in this country are up against people who believe to their core that they are entitled to what others labored to earn and who actually feel superior when taking what is not theirs is the essence of moral narcissism and truly depressing. If you want to be more fuel efficient, live in a smaller house, live longer than any other American, be happier than Americans, have someone else pay for your healthcare and live in a country that can export fuel because their corporate tax rate is 7% compared to the U.S.A.'s 35% and their oil companies don't have the crippling regulations hobbling their every move that American oil companies do, well then frickin have at it. No one is stopping you.

While I have not read this book I am sure it discusses the harm that government price controls always do to an economy. We have very stringent laws against monopolies in the free-market system. Corporate monopoly is not a capitalist principle. It is an abuse of capitalism that takes the "free" out of free-markets. People making the choices and decisions in THEIR LIVES with the money THEY EARN is the essence of Capitalism.

Our Fathers fought a revolution against a monarchy and they created a country founded on a Constitution that protects the NATURAL BORN rights of all individuals and most particularly individual rights FROM GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. The only purpose of our government is to protect those individual rights and to protect our country with a strong military. The fact that socialism was implemented in other countries after other revolutions against other monarchies is meaningless except to show us what an exceptional document the Constitution is and how lucky we are to be Americans. I doubt you even skimmed the book and I believe you have no desire to learn despite your disingenuous plea for correction where you may have gone wrong.

Do you know that Marx was a sociopath who spent his inheritance on clothes and drink while 2 of his children starved to death and 2 others committed suicide? When I found out about that I could finally understand what made socialism/communism/marxism so creepy to me. The very concept is dependent on the dehumanization of people and the murder of individuality and comes from a sub-human mind incapable of understanding the human emotions of loyalty, kindness, generosity, compassion, charity, forgiveness and love. A sub-human bitter mind envious of those who are capable of experiencing the full range of their humanity.

If you have not bothered by now to find out the reasons for our current miserable economic state brought on by a mortgage crisis caused by PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALIST AGENDA policies I don't expect you ever will, but don't expect to be taken seriously by people who know exactly what caused this economic disaster when you start talking parrot-like about deregulation, taxes and deficits. And don't expect me to believe you are a good person who cares when you are willingly so ignorant of why we are where we are. The perfect sociopath socialist imho. If you are brave enough maybe you can ask yourself why this current administration and the previous democrat super-majorities in Congress never had an investigation into this mess.

The rest of your of unoriginal spoon-fed socialist crap spewings are ridiculous but I covered as much as I (barely) had the patience to cover. Hope you don't own anything that you bought with the fruits of your labor (life, labor, skills, ideas, what one creates and builds, and the fruits of all of these things are considered property) or I'd tell you to give it to the Native Americans (I'm 1/4 Cherokee). But you probably don't own anything you actually earned, do you? That is why taking is such a sacred right to the mediocre, talentless socialists parasites and giving to them is supposed to be such a privilege to the rest of us ungrateful capitalist pigs.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2011 4:31:18 PM PDT
B. Fuller says:
Max: Your constant put-downs point toward psychological issues you should address, if not for yourself, for others' benefit. Then again, that may be too socialist of a sentiment. You covered quite a bit with a lot of bitterness, so I'll try to distill my response and address you as though you're arguing in good faith because that's easiest for me.

Oil: I'm not sure how corporate tax rates are a primary factor in oil consumption as you seem to imply, but I'll make some obvious points. I believe it was Exxon that had the largest profit in a year of any company in human history a couple of years ago. Through good times and bad, the big American oil companies post billion dollar profits: subsidized by American motorists, virtual monopolies granted to them by the government, international military presence benefiting private oil extraction, and many other factors that can be considered.

Mortgage crisis: I'm against usury, or interest if you prefer. It's usually used to extract by various methods the resources of others. That aside, I guess you're speaking to the supposed Bush policies to promote homeownership among low-income people. Well, now many of those homes that were loaned to low-income families have been taken away by the big banks. Not so progressive. Plus, home prices across the board have fallen. Clearly, the promotion of little American fiefdoms got ahead of itself, across all class lines.

You're 1/4 Cherokee? How do you feel about the annihilation of almost all Native Americans and all of the Native way of life? And how do you feel about the expansion and support of Native "reservations" and Native autonomy movements? Have you visited any Native reservations in America? I would suggest you do so if you identify to any degree as Native.

I doubt very much that you subsidize my way of life, Max. Though, you obviously adore to think so. I'm a member of a credit union, primarily walk/bike/rideshare/bus to places, grow some of my own food, know how to cook well, teach part-time, etc.

I grant you that these are very modest efforts. But the simplicity is actually a part of my ideology. Now, you capitalist pig, I hope to see future responses from you.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›