I sit on the banks clutching a thin piece of straw, the river flowing by. “We had good intentions.” Or rather “they had good intentions“ - echoes across the water, one ‘innocuous’ concession, and usually in prelude to a very large BUT.

Why, my libertarian colleagues you are “being nice”! Damn you. What is this ‘good’ intentions?

You - who deny the collectivist principle of absolute morality, who propose that no one person ‘is right’ - or more precisely, no one person's goals are morally superior, that no one person (crudely) therefore merits the right to force another into their service, and that you therefore uphold the principle of liberty, should fall so easily for that most false of descriptions ‘the good’ despite (of which you are well aware) the previous century of stupidity and violence.

Even stranger is your casual acceptance of socialist claims - what do you know of socialist intentions? What do they know?

An intention may be stated as ‘good’, when; it appears to the beholder that the aim of the action, if realized, would satisfy their desires, or; by conforming to cultural norms with regard to morality, or; to satisfy an ulterior motive that is unrelated to the results of the action.

Given that you cannot possibly know what a socialist feels I must assume you mean stated intent.

Is there not something vital in this “good intentions”?

Ignoring, or confusing goal / purpose / drive / desire, for stated intention, is to assume we are in complete awareness of our own nature, entirely honest toward our self and others, and that language is a ‘perfect’ communication of reality - it is to deny any non-verbal part in our nature.

There may exist a few exceptions to the rule ‘a person acts to attain their self-interest’ (where action is purposeful, not accidental or reflexive) - perhaps on the verge of unconsciousness, or under the sway of a drive so great it excludes all others to the destruction of self eclipsed in its brightness - a singularity of drive such that purpose itself is lost, but I have yet to meet one.

What action is called ‘unselfish’ normally flows from an enlightened self-interest, an expanded perspective, and to some extent, love.

Socialists; “we want freedom, prosperity, and justice,” whilst supporting tyranny, serfdom, and absurdity! Do you think this is accidental? Even ‘unintentional’ - is surely nearer the mark!

Socialists believe their intentions are good, with a passion you libertarians probably cannot imagine. It emanates from a belief in inherent goodness: their inherent goodness.

Socialism is primitive egoism. That, my friends, is the drive.

What he or she conceives of as ‘good intentions’ flows from a belief in a real, out-there, fundamental essence of goodness - which, as someone who believes in such must (or at least, almost always will) believe their self to possess. Physical results are incidental, it is not concerned with pragmatism. This belief entails a burning emotional drive, which is taken for the ‘good intention’ itself, making it all the more convincing. And among this burning emotional drive - to be good, to be revered - reside emotions of disgust, of anger, and of superiority, for ‘the good’ would not retain meaning were it not for ‘the bad.’

Socialism emerged from a Christian culture when Christianity was losing hold, even among the religious mentality - who were looking for - and creating - a replacement theology. They used an odd assortment of tools (pseudo-science, industrialization, economic theory, even atheism.) With the confidence and self-empowerement of the age, they created socialism (it has always been a bourgeois movement, and a little knowledge is dangerous.) Socialism is Christianity rewritten by fools; the rise of rationalism gave power and confidence to the irrational.

Socialism is a Christian schism.

Inherent good and inherent evil - eternal heaven and eternal damnation.
Elevation of the weak.
A belief in immortality.
Turning away from life toward a frozen death/immortality in the form of the state - the after-life.
Sacrificing the individual.
Marx' historical inevitability - Book of Revelation.
The most intense objection socialists have maintained toward Christianity is not toward God, but toward the individualism within (atomistic soul, seperation of religion and state, individual responsibility, and the relevance of faith.) Yes, they like the power implied within the Christian God, and they replaced God with their own versions: “The Good,” “The Proletariat,” “The Revolution,” “The Party” - a socialist intimately identifies their self with their philosophy - the power to define absolute ends is none other than the power of God. With His mantle they shifted emphasis away from Christian faith (an instinct - of which ‘the good in itself’ and atomistic soul are a crude qualification and justification,) away from the individual and subjugated faith toward something they, ‘the good,’ could control - anti-rational reason, the tyranny of words which accounts for the acceptance and complicity of whole populations in socialist crimes - the instincts for truth, for tolerance, for love, tyrannized through adherence to Reason.

[philosophy] creates the world in its own image, it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself Friedrich Nietzsche
Socialism is perhaps the only philosophy which contributes not one useful meme to human progress or understanding, not only that, it borrows not even one useful meme either.

Socialists often claim to be ‘progressive,’ socialism in practice is a quasi-divine aristocracy ruling according to divine will represented by “the common good.”

A socialist cannot contemplate “being wrong.” To understand the venom a socialist produces toward someone who voices an objection to their opinion, one must realize that if one states a socialist viewpoint is incorrect upon objective results, one is effectively condemning the socialist to eternal damnation, and if one refuses the socialist morality then one is consigning their soul to oblivion.

A socialist will always send their accuser to hell in their place. Empiricism and tolerance are irrelevant on the scale of which the socialist evaluates gain and loss.

A socialist cannot allow their self to make mistakes, and self-hatred ultimately results from repeated failures to meet such high expectations of one' self. “I am good. But then I do such stupid bad things! I let myself down. My image should reflect my purity. Idiot!”

Also, this self-despisal is a very strong reason for belief in an inherent goodness, which is a turning away from the biological reality of the body to a new - clean - self in abstract form, it is a turning away from ‘imperfect’ nature. This turning away from nature is also a turning away from change, and life itself (as we know it.)

With a love of one's ego conflated with philosophy, abstract and ‘pure,’ there is a revulsion to biological alien bodies - I feel this relates somewhat to survival instinct. A love for the abstract is a way to ‘interact’ with others, whilst removing biology to a safe, sterile, distant concept (manifest as an aversion toward sexual intercourse and personal loving relationships, distinctly visible in socialist Party ethics.)

In Fyodor Dostoevsky's fiction The Brothers Karamazov there is this quote (Dostoevsky saw right through the shallow ‘progressives’ of the time, and ultimately re-affirmed Christianity, at the same time he was no friend of Tzarist rule, which was again legitimated by divine consent, and his works were considered subversive):

“It's just the same story as a doctor once told me,” observed the elder. “He was a man getting on in years, and undoubtedly clever. He spoke as frankly as you, though in jest, in bitter jest. ‘I love humanity,’ he said, ‘but I wonder at myself. The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular. In my dreams,’ he said, ‘I have often come to making enthusiastic schemes for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually have faced crucifixion if it had been suddenly necessary; and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with any one for two days together, as I know by experience. As soon as any one is near me, his personality disturbs my self-complacency and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he's too long over his dinner; another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity.’”
The book relates the story of three brothers: the hedonist, the intellectual, and the monk. The intellectual falls in impossible love with the hedonist's fiancee, and the unattainability of the relationship combined with the noise of his philosophy results in a near fatal brain-fever. I am reminded of the socialist tendency toward alcoholism, drug abuse, and depression: do they not proceed from a similar cause?

Friedrich Nietzsche once said of Dostoevsky:

the only person who has ever taught me anything about psychology.
Socialists are bundles of emotional conflicts wrapped way too tight.

For example, at a recent socialist public demonstration in support of ‘peace’ there was encouragement toward hatred - recorded in a Protest Warriors video of the ANSWER (anti-liberation-of-Iraq) rally held on March 20 2004 in Chicago. The crowd have gathered around a large stage, and the compere introduces Suzanne something-or-other (who just so happens to be in a wheelchair) who announces:

“It's good to hate [US President George W.] Bush” [much applause] “I want you to nurture that feeling deep inside.”
Would you expect to hear at a rally held by conservatives/Republicans “It is good to hate [US Democrat Presidential Candidate] John Kerry. I want you to nurture that feeling deep inside”? Does this image not strike you as somewhat bizarre? But I wager you were not suprised when you read the former example.

Moral relativism is often used in support of socialist regimes, but a non-socialist is always “the enemy” and “evil.”

At the later June 5 2004 ANSWER protest in San Fransisco, the Protest Warriors photograph literature on sale - venerating Mao and Lenin - each killed millions of people.

- the socialist tendency toward hatred - of the bourgeoisie, and boy did they nurture that feeling.

The Protest Warriors arrived at the March 20 demonstration carrying pro-liberation signs, they faced; spitting, jostling, intimidation, abusive language such as “fascist pigs” and “nazis” (ironic,) their signs were seized and destroyed. In one particularly poignant moment, the camera lingers upon one such sign, the words which are being stamped upon read:

Communism has only killed 100 million
As one youth at the march exclaims:

“we're not fuckin peaceful, buddy!”
Elsewhere is observed a mask depicting ‘a Jew’ in grotesque physiological-caricature (not an uncommon sight at these marches.) And at the June 5 2004 protest - a man carries a sign stating:

Smash the Jewish state
The same man was photographed at another protest, with a sign stating:

The options still remain = Socialism or imperialist barbarism
At one anti-globalization protest in Milan, Italy, a Milanese Jew carrying a flag of Israel was assaulted.

At another in Italy, this time in Davos, protesters wore masks of the (Jewish) US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - marked with a yellow star and carrying a golden calf laden with money.

- the socialist attitudes toward Jews.

And yet they are still credited with “good intentions.”

Capitalism rewards those who provide the simple things which induce happiness - satisfying the wants of others - with more of those simple things, and this honest, sincere, gentle combination of action and drive is called “evil materialism.” It does not however, reward people for ‘inherent goodness.’

Socialism contains a desire to own people. Employment in socialist economies has been slavery ever since the Bolsheviks under Lenin. And it is this belief that their philosophy is really serving the interests of others hung on a belief in absolute morality that justifies the use of force, to coerce society into satisfying their desire to own people.

A military dictator is normally satisfied with a pampered and opulent lifestyle, a socialist dictator though needs much more, above all (above the foie gras,) the unwavering adulation of all his subjects - beyond that which is necessary to sustain power. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Hussein, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Il-Sung - they all demanded and indoctrinated hysterical worship, and they genuinely viewed their selves as heroes, superhuman, almost gods, an image which they made every effort to encourage. Countless parades, nationwide celebration of their birth dates, statues, streets, towns, cities named after them, mandatory portraits in every building, their names proclaimed in every lesson in every school. Socialist dictators want to be loved with a complete devotion - their people must give their selves, the dictator must possess his people much like old-fashioned husbands demand possession of ‘their’ wives. Further, to do this, the people must know the dictator, as one lover must know another. Every citizen must be intimately acquainted with the dictator's visage, and his countless personal “achievements,” the image the dictator displays is truly the image he holds of his self: Saddam, as evidenced in his book-writing, viewed himself as a loved and revered Arab hero, and a model of Saladin. The inability of the socialist dictator to tolerate any dissent, and to see signs of dissent everywhere (echoed in the conspiracy theories of socialists - ‘whatever facts disturb our world-view must be a conspiracy’ or even ‘a CIA agent’) killed millions. Again, fear of the future is a feature of primitive egoism. The socialism of Joe socialist and socialist dictator is little different - what differs is the stomach each has, the importance each one gives to their politics, and the strength of more liberal and humane instincts, which determines their willingness to pursue their beliefs to the gruesome conclusion that is practical socialism. ‘Only those least suitable to wield power are attracted toward doing so’ does not hold as an excuse for socialists. All socialists desire power, either absolute, or as a cog within a vast machine. Socialism subverts a spiritual craving from self-control to self-exultation, military heroism evident in the parades, the marches, the uniforms, the music, the hierarchy, the language. In 1984 George Orwell once again made the right call: the purpose of socialism is power for its own sake.

Socialists, ultimately, are victims of an all-too-human disease.

For further discussion with regards the appeal of socialism to intellectual wordsmiths, the following essay "Why do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?" by Robert Nozick is worthwhile reading.