Response to Amazon Review of “How Communism and Socialism Work”
By Robert
Villegas
A good
author gives his reader a clear statement of the fundamental ideas that brought
him or her to write his book. Likewise, he can easily detect the agenda of the
negative book reviewer by reading between the lines of the review. This was
particularly evident for me in the first Amazon book review of my book “How Communism
and Socialism Work (https://amzn.to/3XHgvm2 (Paid link))”. The agenda of this reviewer was clearly anti-capitalist
and she (Barbara) sought to make sure that people did not read this book. I had
violated some of his/her basic tenets by disagreeing with how communism and
socialism works. This was clear to me because, rather than discussing communism
or socialism, the reviewer attacked me. The title of the review is "Not an objective pov, very right wing". First let me point out that I am neither right wing or left wing. I don't believe in either title as I am a radical for capitalism and rightly so. That is not a right wing position as most right wingers are religiously inclined theocrats. With that said, Barbara clearly exposes her leftist bias. I assume that means she considers genocide and mass murder to be left wing as that is what she seems to be for.
It is highly likely that someone paid this reviewer to write a negative assessment of my book. The telltale signs indicate that this is the case. Whoever paid the reviewer didn’t get her money’s worth because she only scanned the first chapter and then said nothing to defend communism or socialism. Rather, in order to pretend she knew something about communism or socialism, criticized me for being negative about the two coercive systems.
Let us begin:
“Reading
through the sample I was under the impression that the author was going to
describe the history of communism and socialism and go into a compare, contrast
discussion. Possibly sprinkle in capitalism, Marxism, fascism, and other
ideologies. However, th(is) wasn't the case. The book is filled with buzz words
that evoke emotion (mostly anger). In the introduction he states, "if most
people do not know what capitalism is, it is because of the negative propaganda
about capitalism regularly spewed by socialist teachers throughout our
educational system and even the media. Teachers and journalists lie about
capitalism's positive features, and they have no problem misleading school
children and the public." He goes on to finger point and blame. Does he
know all teachers in the US and their teaching tactics? Has he sat in and
listened to all or even most teachers and how they teach (I highly doubt it)?”
My response:
Of course, leftists blindly make general statements like this as a way of seeming
to discredit their opposition. Arguments against communism and socialism don’t
take, nor does they require, that the analysis of the educational system be
fully comprehensive and complete. This is not a book about education. It is an
exposé of the way communism and socialism work in society as a
whole.
What it
takes is an understanding of how principles operate in the education of the
child. One need only read commonly available articles and studies to identify
the fact that in many “leftist” educational jurisdictions, the licensing requirements for
teachers require knowledge of and adherence to socialism and communism,
virtually all of which are replete with anti-capitalist notions.[1]
After
questioning my analysis, the reviewer is not even checking her own
statements against the reality that many school districts are teaching
communism and socialism, as well as critical theory that came out of the
Frankfurt School in Germany (for example Herbert Marcuse, a staunch communist).
To return to
the review:
“What about
private schools, what do they teach? Educators should be presenting information
and encouraging kids to think for themselves. Kids are learning (or should be)
to see all sides of a position even a political view and measure the facts
against their morals and values to see what fits with them.”
My response:
Is the reviewer suggesting that private schools should present a positive view
of communism and socialism and a negative view of capitalism? He or she might
be surprised to know that many private schools already do that. In fact, private
schools bring to education a number of historical perspectives across the full
spectrum of political thought. The fact that much of what is taught today comes
from the ideas of modern philosophy; from Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hobbes, and
other philosophers, and this means that the basis of what they teach (such as the
historical process of dialectical materialism) means that many private schools
are teaching essentially the same ideas as public schools. Like our reviewer,
they too ignore mentioning the millions of people killed by communism and socialism
because they are projecting into reality that “real” socialism and communism
don’t commit genocide. I assert that genocide is a common feature of all forms
of communism and socialism. I’m afraid that the question “What about private
schools?” has essentially the same answer as “What about public schools?”
So, the
reviewer’s goal of minimizing the value of my book, by making spurious comments
about my research, without even reading the book, becomes clear. It is not
about my research, it is about telling you, the reader, not to read the book.
This is a typical tactic of the left; to attack ideas without discussing them
or offering better ideas. It is not about a dispassionate comparison of
capitalism and coercive systems – it is about denying the truth that socialism and
communism (the real things) kill people in massive numbers.
Back to the
review:
“It was my
hope that the author would present history, definitions, and objective evidence
so I can form my own opinion and basically let me think for myself.
My response:
This is what
I call emotionalism. I, the writer, am supposed to follow his or her
emotions and needs, not my reason. My goal, according to the reviewer, should
be to follow her hopes, present a version of history, definitions, and
objective evidence so he or she can form an opinion by his or her self. But
that is not my goal in this book. It is not my goal to provide answers that the
reviewer can merely reject as right wing. It is my goal to present the truth and identify the basic source (altruism) as the destroyer of nations. It is the expropriation of values (as an act of altruism) that make communism and socialism evil. This is not a mere left versus right issue - it is a wrong versus right issue.
My goal is
to provide a new perspective on socialism and communism by implicating a bad idea that is seldom identified; by pointing directly to the fact that the evils of communism and socialism are created by adherence to altruism; which is the demand for human sacrifice. My goal is to
expose the evils of communism and socialism, not tip toe around the issues,
ignore the genocide, famines, and murders, and declare that these systems have
been misunderstood – they are not merely misunderstood; they are evil and diabolical – they are
nihilistic – their goals are to destroy good people and ruin their lives. While
the reviewer merely says:
“But instead,
he presents his opinion.”
My response:
This is a
spurious criticism. I am not presenting a mere opinion; I am presenting a
stark, real truth that declares communism and socialism to be inanely sick and
bloodthirsty. It is not my opinion that they killed over 200 million people who
were guilty of being intelligent and prosperous. If that fact does not
make you hate communism and socialism, then YOU are insane.
To declare
anti-communism and anti-socialism to be mere right wing opinions is to diminish the utter
raving sickness of communists and socialists, their street violence and coercive regulations. Indeed, for the leftist who loves
communism and socialism, any criticism of these systems is an opinion – and they
hope you agree that my criticisms are worthless if they come from someone who merely criticizes communism or socialism.
Back to the
reviewer:
“Author's
should write books like these to encourage people to think rather then (sic) telling
them what to think using emotions and fear.”
My response:
It is interesting
that neither communism nor socialism encourage people to think logically, and
that their teachers surely use emotions and fear when they encourage students
to love the most vicious ideas in history.
When
philosophy debates important issues, it breaks each issue into different sides
and demands they both use the same method: reason and facts. This book was
written to encourage people to think for themselves about how evil communism
and socialism are. It also introduces the idea that is often ignored by
scholars that communism and socialism are outgrowths of altruism, a moral
philosophy that causes failure in society. That is what this debate is about
and that is what my book is about. It asks the reader to think about that “for himself”
and relate it to the success or failure of his or her life.
Back to the
reviewer:
“Anytime
anyone starts blaming others without the person there to rebut the argument;
then it’s an opinion piece. I couldn't even get through the introduction; his
anger was disappointing.
My response:
What could
it possibly mean to be “blaming others” “without the person there to rebut the
argument”. Is she referring to Marx? He is dead. Is the reviewer saying you
cannot criticize a person who is either dead or absent? In fact, there is no
discernible anger in the introduction to my book, so this criticism is
meaningless. I suppose one is not supposed to be angry with communists and
socialists for all the destruction they have wrought throughout history. For some reason I cannot fathom, communism and socialism are to be discussed without criticizing their fundamental features; features which make up their essential evil? Communism and socialism TAKE values from people as a central feature of their existence. If that isn't evil, then what is?
In truth,
the purpose of this negative review of my book, in my opinion, is to keep
people from reading it. The reviewer does not want people to know that there is
an argument for capitalism and against communism and socialism. By ignoring the
rest of the book, the reviewer seeks to establish, in the minds of potential
readers, a false premise that the book is fraught with false arguments against
the two most murderous political philosophies in history. The reader is supposed to blindly accept coercion and slaughter as good for society.
Communism
and socialism versus capitalism are two distinct systems based upon opposite
premises. For generations, Communism and socialism have fraudulently taken upon
themselves the moral upper hand over capitalism. In truth, communism and socialism are based
upon force and capitalism is based upon freedom; and the difference between
force and freedom clearly implies that it is capitalism that has the moral
upper hand when it comes to its ability to create wealth and abundance, while
communism and socialism are destructive. This is because force is always destructive.
That is what I show in my book.
When you
advocate a system based on force, you must use an argument to justify your appropriation
of the moral upper hand. This argument is altruism (which requires human
sacrifice). This requires the immoral assertion that the gun toting
appropriators of wealth are really trying to do good for people and/or society.
The reason
that the advocates of communism/socialism fight and denigrate capitalism is
because capitalism succeeds in creating wealth and happiness for hard working
people. The left cannot stand capitalism because, if it was allowed to
flourish, it would overwhelm the value of communism and socialism and expose
the decay they bring to society.
Any effort
that compares communism, socialism, and fascism to capitalism is a fruitless
endeavor. There has never been a coercive system that was superior to any
capitalist system. If you identify the choices correctly for the student, you
can identify the nature of each system in order to decide on the system that is
good for human life. For instance, if you declare that capitalism is superior
to communism, you can muster facts and valid statistics which make the case.
Communists don’t want that discussion which is why they prefer the moral case
which gives them the power to lie and distort the morality of each system. Few
people anywhere have tried to make the moral case for capitalism which is why
the reviewer accused me of being negative and ignoring the educational system.
In fact, capitalism is moral, and communism and socialism are evil, and this is
why I am negative and angry. It is a righteous anger that I am proud to hold.
All one has to do is observe the millions of dead at the hands of the genocidal
murderers of communism and socialism in order to be angry. To consider these murderous systems to be aberrations is itself an aberration.
Whoever this
reviewer is, she would not have been able to give this book a poor rating
without first buying the book. This means they cannot request a refund of the
purchase price because reviewing products requires a valid purchase of the
product.
The argument
made here about “blaming others” is also bogus. I am blaming true killers and
thieves for hurting many people under the banner of altruistic sacrifice. If one is going to educate people about the
proper society, one must blame those responsible for the false ideas that
create murderous societies. The “blaming others” charge is not about being negative
and opinionated, it is about blaming communists and socialists for their
demonstrably bad ideas and governance.
Please note: You can find the review of this book by clicking "1 Rating" next to the book image found on the book link above (Paid link)