People will lie about being democratic to gain power with no intention of implementing democracy. People will lie about being socialist to gain power with no intention of implementing socialism. People lie. Yes, it’s that simple.
Marx was very clear that socialism requires worker ownership over the means of production via democracy. Workers did not own or control the means of production in the USSR. There was no democracy in the USSR. Therefore, the USSR was not socialist.
Thomas Jefferson owned more than just land. He also owned more than six hundred slaves, mostly inherited from his father and his father-in-law and his political attitude toward the slavery question was always extremely ambiguous. His ideal republic of small landowners enjoying equal rights did not include people of color, on whose forced labour the economy of his native Virginia largely depended. 
The United States was founded on principles similar to those of ancient Athens where “democracy” and “equal rights” were reserved for the slave-making elite. Slave-makers like Voltaire helped push through free speech—the real motivation being that self-proclaimed “masters” wanted to be uninhibited in saying whatever they wanted, particularly when it came to ludicrous justifications for slavery and imperialism. (I still agree with free speech, but it’s important to understand the real reason for its acceptance.) Slave-makers like Voltaire are only interested in civil debate between slave-makers so that the basic assumptions of such debates are sharply delimited. For example: “Should Blacks be enslaved because they are racially inferior and no better than cattle, or should they be enslaved for humanitarian reasons such as helping them learn how to use soap?” 
Athenian-style slave-makers enjoy all the comforts and conveniences of enslaving others on top of the status of being “progressives.” Movements against discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation gained momentum in the West largely because they gave the appearance of liberalism while leaving slave-making pathology untouched. (This doesn’t mean that all the protesters for those movements were Athenian-style slave-makers or disingenuous. Those movements consisted of real as well as fake liberals.)
It sounds strange that slave-making can still exist despite professed acceptance of racial equality. However, that’s because slave-makers shifted from more direct forms of slavery to other forms of slavery such as wage-slavery which enslaves regular humans of all races.
(On the condition of slaves in Ancient Athens:)
Slaves could not own property, but their masters often let them save up to purchase their freedom, and records survive of slaves operating businesses by themselves, making only a fixed tax-payment to their masters. Athens also had a law forbidding the striking of slaves: if a person struck what appeared to be a slave in Athens, that person might find himself hitting a fellow-citizen, because many citizens dressed no better. It astonished other Greeks that Athenians tolerated back-chat from slaves. Athenian slaves fought together with Athenian freemen at the battle of Marathon, and the monuments memorialize them. It was formally decreed before the battle of Salamis that the citizens should “save themselves, their women, children, and slaves”. 
(On the conditions for former slaves in Réunion:)
The number of slaves in French colonies emancipated in 1848 has been estimated at 250, 0000 (or less than 10 percent of the number of slaves in the United States). As in the United States, however, forms of legal inequality continued well after formal emancipation: in Réunion, for example, after 1848 former slaves could be arrested and imprisoned as indigents unless they could produce a labor contract as a servant or worker on a plantation. Compared with the previous legal regime, under which fugitive slaves were hunted down and returned to their masters if caught, the difference was real, but it represented a shift in policy rather than a complete break with the previous regime. 
One can view the emancipation of slaves in Réunion as being a mere shift from direct Spartan-style slave-making to more indirect Athenian-style slave-making. Athenian-style slave-making is obsessed with finding ways to force other human beings to work. It has nothing to do with the fact that this helps the economy. It has everything to do with specializing in controlling the labour of others so one doesn’t have to perform any labour themselves. Athenian-style slave-making is the predominant force governing Western society today. People are forced to work in a way that is considered acceptable to the slave-makers. Anybody who stops working for the slave-makers and is not a slave-maker themselves becomes poor almost immediately.
Phoney-liberalism is reaching a tipping point where all of the progressive values upheld in rhetoric are becoming genuinely realized to the point that slave-making itself is in jeopardy. This a very dangerous time period as a result. Spartan-style slave-makers will do what they always do which is try to maintain fascist conditions. Athenian-style slave-makers, who have always fundamentally done the same while paying lip-service to human rights, are going to be all over the map. In Voltaire’s time, Voltaire could pretend to care about free speech and support free speech measures his entire life because so many other elements of society maintained slave-making conditions for him. This allowed him to look less hypocritical. However, if Voltaire were alive today, he would both have to pay lip-service to free speech to maintain his phoney-liberal façade, but then take immediate measure to help suppress free speech for the general public to help maintain slave-making dogma.
It’s obvious Justin Trudeau has become a walking contradiction at this point because he has to support liberal ideals in speech, but must immediately take action against professed ideals to maintain the fundamentals of slave-making:
David Suzuki on Justin Trudeau:
“I said, ‘Justin, stop it, you’re just being political, you just want to make headway in Alberta,’” Suzuki says he told Trudeau. “You’re for the development of the tar sands, you’re for the Keystone pipeline, but you’re against the Northern Gateway, you’re all over the damn map!” 
Both Spartan and Athenian-style slave-makers will be working hard to oppose many of the liberties that past slave-makers helped establish such as free speech; equal rights for people of different races, genders, and sexual orientations; universal suffrage etc. It will start becoming more and more obvious which people truly believe in principles of democracy, free speech, and liberalism and which people are just pretending. (Even the North Korean elite profess to be democratic.)
The frauds need to be discarded by society. I still support a basic income and basic human rights for all including those frauds. They will pay in the form of public condemnation, isolation and worst of all: not being able to execute their intrinsic slave-making pathology. Slave-maker ants will starve to death without their slaves even when food is provided. 
More genuine movements that re-emphasize the importance of racial and gender equality, free speech, democracy, sexual and religious freedom, the necessity of a basic income etc. and which simultaneously condemn phoney-liberals like Voltaire and Trudeau are critical. The ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement is a good illustration of the necessity for a second wave of real liberalism that reaffirms all the liberal values made popular in the past with the help of Athenian-style slave-makers who will now begin taking measures to counteract those same values because those ideals now threaten their control.
It will be scary how many people will drop their liberal façade and shift to extreme slave-making practices once their cushy, elite-oppressor status is threatened.
The entire history of Westernism has been inverse-civilization. This might be the first time Westernism has started to shift towards real civilization.
 Piketty, Thomas, and Arthur Goldhammer. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Print. Page 158.
 Athenian Slaves
 Piketty, Thomas, and Arthur Goldhammer. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Print. Page 593.
Imagine a scenario where an authoritarian regime holds an election and unsurprisingly wins with 99% of the vote.  Does anybody refer to this as democracy or even Democracy?
Of course not.
Does anybody use Democratic Kampuchea or The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as examples of democracy?
Of course not.
Every single human being is intelligent enough to figure out that authoritarian regimes lie about being democratic. Everybody is smart enough to know that dictators will stage phoney elections to create the illusion of democracy while having absolutely no intent of implementing true democracy.
Now imagine a scenario where an authoritarian regime says they will implement socialism and says that they will redistribute wealth equally. Does that instantly mean they are telling the truth?
Of course not.
It’s very clear that there was no wealth equality in the USSR. Some people were 300 pounds while others starved to death. It’s also very clear that workers did not own the means of production. Thus, there was no socialism in the USSR.
The same is true for Democratic Kampuchea where the elites were fed, but many common people died of starvation. People were forced to move from urban centres to the countryside where they were forced to work on farms they did not own and where the output of their labour was controlled by an authoritarian regime rather than the workers themselves.
Just because an authoritarian regime forces people to work on farms does not mean there is socialism or collectivism the same way an authoritarian regime holding an election does not mean there is democracy. People were forced to work on those farms to create the illusion of socialism the way phoney-elections are used to create the illusion of democracy.
Thus, new terminology must be introduced. Referring to Democratic Kampuchea as socialist is as ridiculous as referring to it as democratic. However, one could use the terms inverse-socialism and inverse-democracy to describe it.
Inverse-democracy describes a situation where an authoritarian regime poses as democratic and tries to create the illusion of being democratic (by holding phoney elections or putting the word Democracy in the official title) but is actually the exact opposite of democracy.
(Note: The term inverse-democracy would not apply to authoritarian regimes that outright declare that they are authoritarian and not democratic. The term inverse-democracy applies to authoritarian regimes that go out of their way to create the appearance of democracy while maintaining authoritarian rule.)
Likewise, inverse-socialism describes a scenario where the exact opposite of socialism actually exists, but people in power work to create the illusion of socialism (by forcing people to work on farms, for example.)
The prefix inverse- is better than the prefix anti- because the prefix anti- sets up an ambiguity.
Anti-democracy could refer to inverse-democracy (a dictator pretending to be democratic) or it could refer to open opposition against democracy.
Anti-socialism could refer to inverse-socialism (non-socialist regimes pretending to be socialist) or it could refer to opposition to true socialist principles.
Thus, inverse- is the best prefix, in my opinion.
Additionally, many people refer to a parliamentary democracy with high taxation and welfare as democratic socialism. However, this is not true socialism either. It’s merely capitalism with high taxation and welfare. Welfare-capitalism would be more accurate.
Socialism does not necessarily mean there is perfect wealth equality either. It just means that the workers own the means of production.
It’s horrendous that Western educators have been propagating such a blatant and horrendous lie that the USSR was actually redistributing wealth equally amongst all of its citizens. It’s horrendous that millions upon millions of students are being fed this lie throughout junior high, high school and post-secondary.
It’s horrendous that every Western (and Soviet) media outlet fed this lie to the public.
It’s horrendous that all of these “fact and evidence”-based atheists suddenly turn tail and run when it’s time to advocate for evidence that actually opposes elitism.
Shi Dakai (石達開) was one of the major leaders of the Taiping Rebellion, a failed peasant uprising against the corrupt Qing dynasty. After accepting defeat at the hands of the Qing army, Shi Dakai sacrificed himself in exchange for the lives of his troops:
“On 13 June, Shi Dakai negotiated with the Qing to spare his men’s lives if he turned himself in. He entered Qing camps with three followers, dressed in formal Taiping uniform, and spoke to the Qing fearlessly. He was questioned and imprisoned, and on the 25th he was executed by slow slicing in the Anshun Court.”
“…The social conditions of the citizens were comparable to those in Sumeria and superior to the contemporary Babylonians and Egyptians.”
“…neither sculptures of rulers nor depictions of battles and military campaigns have been found, evidence pointing in either direction is not conclusive.”
The Indus Valley Civilization is known for its highly sophisticated and egalitarian urban development that included multiple story houses designed to take advantage of air currents to create natural ventilation.
“Many houses had wells and bathrooms as well as an elaborate underground drainage system.”
Their society was known for being peaceful. From my perspective, a society that is peaceful, egalitarian, and lacking evidence of rulers points to very limited elitism and the likelihood of statelessness.
A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence.
It takes a certain level of intellectual sophistication to look at the world through a lens of reason rather than give into prejudice that serves only to convenience an undiscriminating mind. As of late, New Atheism and its proponents (Harris, Dawkins, Maher and the following they’ve amassed for themselves) have come under heavy fire for what is perceived as “knee-jerk anti-Muslim bigotry.” Such criticism likely stems from the media’s oversight of the general public’s emotional vulnerability to isolated scenes of violence directed towards Muslims. This has been exacerbated by what can only be described as ultra-left-wing sentimentalists—many stemming from Hollywood’s spare-time-“intellectuals”—who have abandoned reason and hard evidence for misguided notions that blind sympathy for all “others” necessarily equates to virtuous liberal sensibility. One must temper impulse with reason and take a solid look at truths we don’t always want to acknowledge. As the following article illustrates, evidence and reason would lead a rational mind to conclude that Islam, exceptional among Abrahamic religions, naturally incites violence within its followers:
One continues muddled in the grimy depths of ignorance without taking a clear look at Islam’s brimming track-record of being the single common denominator in acts of terror and extremism throughout history:
For centuries during its prominence, Muslims have posed a serious threat to the Roman Empire and terrorism stemming from Islamic tribes, requiring the need for exorbitant Roman military expenditure, is cited as a contributor to the once all-powerful empire’s decline.
In fact, one can see documentation of raids by rogue Muslim seafarers on Eastern Mediterranean empires as far back as the mid-14th century BCE. As with Rome, the number of Muslim groups that banded together to carry out these attacks increased consistently until the collapse of Bronze Age civilization within the region altogether.
And nobody can deny the extreme threat Islamic nomads from the North posed to ancient Chinese dynasties, requiring countless man-hours, resources—even human lives—to constantly build, rebuild and repair thousand-kilometre stretches of defensive barrier.
Thus, recent science and evidence alongside countless documented examples throughout history points to a single conclusion which I’ll let the critical mind of a rational reader reach for itself.