"Am I the only DUer who sees socialism as the only viable future?"
Most Democrats are really nothing but a bunch of socialists... Wait a minute, PJ, aren't you casting a vicious right-wing slur upon the Democrats? Actually, no. The fact is if you took a private poll of most delegates to next summer's Democrat National Convention, and ask them which system is preferrable, capitalism or socialism, the vast majority would either give you the chicken answer of neither or flat out admit that they think socialism is preferrable. In DUmmieland itself the same poll would show that at least 75% would prefer socialism and that might even be an underestimate. It is really no big secret about the DUmmie love affair with socialism. They flat out admit it as you can see in this DUmmie THREAD titled, "Am I the only DUer who sees socialism as the only viable future?" Actually that is a pretty silly question since the answer is so obvious. It is the equivalent of asking, "Am I the only frat brother who digs hot chicks and cold beer?" So let us now watch the DUmmies express their overwhelming love for socialism in Bolshevik/Socialist Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, noting that the Evil Empire called itself the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, is in the [brackets]:
Am I the only DUer who sees socialism as the only viable future?
[Fear not, DUmmie. You are NOT alone.]
The battle I see in front of us is larger than the minor disputes between Keynesian and Austrian schools of thought. I'm sick of watching politicians and capitalists continually screwing over the little person. I'm sick of watching humans squabble over not getting the newest mp3 player while more than half the world population struggles for a living.
[The socialist solution is to lower our standard of living so some of the world's peasants can have access to those mp3 players.]
The Right-Wing has succeeded in purging the Left from mainstream politics, but like hope, socialism can never die. The desire to have a world free of masters where the economy operates on a heart rather than greed is a continuity over time. No matter how many laws are implemented, no matter how many unions are busted, no matter how many protesters are shot at, no matter how many media stations are bought off, no matter how many periods of intense propaganda consume our culture -- socialism will emerge victorious.
[Socialismo o Muerte!]
The socialism I talk of is the honest-to-goodness socialism geniuses like Eugene Debs and Martin Luther King Jr. fought for. Not social democracy. Not Stalinism. I'm talking of wiping out capitalism completely, and with it the state. I'm talking about voluntary associations of people based on democracy and self-autonomy. I'm talking about a world where the 30% of the work force currently holding jobs to protect capitalism are freed to do other, more productive things. I'm talking about automating industries that humans generally tend to shy away from. I'm talking about eliminating the plight of crime, corruption, prostitution, gambling, and sexism by making capital obsolete. I'm talking about allocating resources to the betterment of humanity instead of war and legal paperwork.
[The usual line from the socialists. Stalinism (or Maoism) was merely an aberration but we can really make socialism work...finally. Notice that oil rich Venezuela currently has the shelves of its food stores empty of food. All because of Hugo Chavez's "Bolivaran" socialism. Yes, DUmmie, someday maybe socialism can work...but only in an alternate dimension.]
These ideas are called pure utopian by many, but are they really? 200 years ago conservatives in Europe called the concept of liberalism "utopian." It continually failed to be implemented properly. Many monarchists claimed the masses were too ignorant to decide so much. We needed kings and queens and aristocrats.
[Who you want to replace with dictators and commissars.]
I say we don't need capitalists and representatives. We need only ourselves. People don't need to be forced to do anything. A culture of cooperation will always defeat a culture of backstabbing and competition.
[Representative democracy? Eh, who needs it? It can replaced with socialism in which the moral purity of the people can be depended on to prevent a Stalin or a Mao or a Li'l Kim or a Castro or a Chavez or a...]
I wonder if we're mature enough for true socialism ...as a race of beings. Human greed and hate always seems to creep in and undermine things.
[We are not WORTHY!!!]
Killing capitalism may sound impossible, but we ALL can kill our blind consumerism and guess what... The power of the purse.
[Not One Damn Dime Day.]
If we're to survive then a shift to socialist values will have to occur. I think there's the potential for this as people by nature are social animals and tend towards progressive ideals; they want what's best for themselves and their families, and divisive, regressive government schemes don't deliver. The obstacle to that is those who hold the power.
[A DUmmie proposes Bolshevik Revolution. Send out the flying Chekha squads!]
Without any competition, I think we'd lose a lot of innovation. How to reward innovation while maintaining fairness for all is the problem. But, judging from all the political tests I have taken, I am basically a socialist.
[Despite all the evidence I've seen, I stubbornly remain a socialist.]
A national economy must be built up on socialist ideas. You can't "patch it in" and expect it to work - as we have seen by the rape of unions, as we have seen by the meltdown of regulations, as we have seen by the dissolution of workers' rights, fair trade, and livable wages. All these ideas were stapled onto a nigh-immobile system that ran directly counter to these ideas, that of the rapacious robber barons. In order to have socialism in America, the system has to crash and burn and be rebuilt. Beyond the great Depression and the New Deal. It calls for an entire restructuring of how things work in this country.
[One of my favorite South Park episodes was when all the hippies converged together and denounced the EVIL corporations without knowing what they hell they were talking about.]
I hate to be a fly in the ointment, but we're facing extinction. Anthrogenic climate change is utterly irreversible and within a couple of hundred years, the political structures of the planet will be unrecognizable.
[Haven't you gotten the word yet? Since Algore is definitely not running in 2008, that whole Global Warming shtick has now been ditched.]
Capitalism drives competition which benefits all society when it means creating jobs and opportunities as opposed to a state-sponsored system that will either only produce what's needed or overproduce just to maintain jobs. Automate all you want, but at the head-end there's still gonna be a human plugging in the data...that creates status as well.
[LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]
As someone who was part of a communal farm from 1969-89, my experience is that appealing to the group's needs almost always took back seat to what individuals wanted for themselves (out of their own labor and out of the group enterprise.) Today, I prefer private ownership and responsibility for my own farm (I'm the only one remaining here from the original communal band) but with outlets and involvement for supporting and nurturing the larger community which I am very much a part of. Enlightened community interest, involvement and support beats socialism, hands down.
[It took 20 wasted years of Hippie living on a commune to FINALLY get this guy's mind right.]
If the 1960's communes were so great, how come we don't still see them in existence today? I wasn't an adult back then but I've read. Seems the communes work well as long as everyone is doing their fair share and cooperating. But as soon as someone starts shirking, or taking more than they should, or is simply a bad apple in the community, things start to break down and we need a societal structure to intervene. It is natural to want to work hard, and to share, but it's hard to voluntarily share when you think you're working harder than everyone else and that you're being taken advantage of.
[Isn't there at least ONE Hippie Commune left in existence? It would make a great tourist attraction. But be sure to drive through with your windows up so as to avoid the smell.]
Marx's theory of human nature occupies an important place in his critique of capitalism, his conception of communism, and his 'materialist conception of history'. Marx, however, does not refer to "human nature" as such, but to Gattungswesen, which is generally translated as 'species-being' or 'species-essence'. What Marx meant by this is that humans are capable of making or shaping their own nature to some or other extent. According to a note from the young Marx in the Manuscripts of 1844, the term is derived from Ludwig Feuerbach’s philosophy, in which it refers both to the nature of each human and of humanity as a whole. However, in the sixth Thesis on Feuerbach (1845), Marx criticizes the traditional conception of "human nature" as "species" which incarnates itself in each individual, on behalf of a conception of human nature as formed by the totality of "social relations". Thus, the whole of human nature is not understood, as in classical idealist philosophy, as permanent and universal: the species-being is always determinated in a specific social and historical formation, while some aspects being of course biological.
[And now you know why I fell asleep trying to read Das Kapital once when I was sent to the library for detention in high school.]
I am fairly old and have seen enough to know that many are lazy and clueless. Many of these people could care less about pulling their own weight now and surely would not under a different system.To many have an entitlement mentality and will keep it under socialism. If you think I am wrong you are a Blindpig. We will always have lowlifes that don't pull their own weight, they hurt themselves and hurt those who really do need help.
[We shall sing the "Internationale" at your tombstoning ceremony.]
Who was the socialist candidate for prez in the last election. I bet you can't name the person.
[Mama T's Half-Goy Toy. ...And now a special bonus video below of DUmmie types getting all excited about attending a Socialism 2007 conference.]
posted by PJ-Comix at 6:34 AM
30 Comments:
It always fascinates me how liberals cling to socialism (or communism) as the great Answer to Everything.
Unlike most Great Answers to Everything, this one's already been tested. Haven't they actually looked around? Socialism doesn't work. Period. It has, in every single case, led to the same predictable results: it either creates a stagnate, bland, unproductive, withering society ... and/or it leads to human rights abuses and losses of freedom that could never occur in a capitalist democracy.
Stalinism wasn't the exception - it is the rule.
Communism/Socialism might be just fine (in theory) in small family group units. As systems of government, they've already failed miserably. The United States is the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth, and that's not an accident.
It really baffles me. I realize they see reality through some pretty thick blinders (they have to be to support real dictators like Castro and Chavez), but still ...
I've lived in socialist countries, the benign kind and the ugly kind. The latter is pretty ugly; hope you don't like free speech, free assembly, or basic civil liberties. But even in the enlightened socialism of western Europe, well, it has its own kind of ugliness. Hope you like paying 70% taxes to an inefficient, bloated government that looks suspiciously like your local DMV, hope you like 10+% unemployment, hope you like no opportunities to really pursue your dreams and talents.
Liberals think that sounds nice for one reason: you can be a bum pretty easily in western Europe. Somebody will always feed you, no matter how lazy and worthless you are. I guess that's what liberals like about it.
For the worthless, I guess its not bad. But for the vast majority who want to be even vaguely productive, its just baffling that they think its a good idea. There is real despair in socialism, a despair I've never seen even in some awfully bleak parts of the U.S.
I laughed out loud at the comments from the two aging hippies who had actually LIVED in real communes. THEY get it, don't they? They see exactly the problem.
Good for them. Too bad liberals, as a rule, never listen to those with experience. The hippies got it exactly right.
...and/or it leads to human rights abuses and losses of freedom that could never occur in a capitalist democracy.
Mr. Musharraf, would you care to weigh in on that?
"I love this stuff because if you ever doubt your own sanity, all you have to do is read this stuff and realize that you're okay."
-- Charles Krauthammer
the D. K. quote was mine.
"The Right-Wing has succeeded in purging the Left from mainstream politics,"
They have? Then who were all those slobbering dirt-merchants on the stage with the UberFrauFuhrer in Philadelphia two weeks ago?
"but like hope, socialism can never die."
Ahhh. well. He's right about that, but prolly not in the way he thinks.
The reason socialism will never die is because it's the bastard stepchild of capitalism and communism.
Unlike phoenix knight, I've lived in countries that are nearly capitalist wet dreams...laissez-faire carried to a ridiculous extreme.
Did it produce wealth?
Yes, for a very few, and ugly, live-on-the-set-of-a-Save-the-Children-commercial poverty for the vast majority.
These conditions produce communists like weeds. It is unavoidable.
Communism side-product is entrepeneurial venture capitalists.
So...society waters down capitalism and waters down communism, and what we end up with is a socialism in one form and degree or another.
It sucks, but it beats the shit out of all the other alternatives.
(Rabid Free Traders and the glazed-of-eye subset of Right wingers hate to hear this shit.).
These are the people that will fall for Operation Blue Beam in a heart beat. If there is really a sizable majority of people in the US that think like this, we're in some deep trouble.
Phoenix Knight is right. It's the "free lunch" mentality.
Every person extolling the perfection of Socialism is personally expecting to be one of those whose needs are met without his having to work for the man; to be one of those "30% of the work force currently holding jobs to protect capitalism are freed to do other, more productive things."
Socialists dream of a Utopian State that provides all they need while they spend their lives in creative, fulfilling pursuits.
They are apparently unaware that a State is People who somehow have to create all the goods our little Socialist expects provided for free.
They never explain, or apparently, consider, exactly who will pick tomatoes, fix lawn-mowers, clean the streets, collect the garbage, dig the graves, repair sewers, empty bed pans, sew the clothes, make the shoes.
The Peace Movement of the 60's was draft age men embracing "Peace" because they didn't want to serve.
That's why it is usually the intellectuals...(not the intelligent!) who admire Socialism. They expect to be the ones freed from the rigors of making a living, of being supported by the State while they live fascinating, creative lives, dedicated to learning and art...
They're not the least concerned about the sewer worker or the tomato picker forced to provide his functional plumbing or his food.
gunslinger:
"They expect to be the ones freed from the rigors of making a living, of being supported by the State while they live fascinating, creative lives, dedicated to learning and art..."
Y'know, that exact same set of "values",(substituting "profits and dividends" for the "state support" part), could be validly ascribed to capitalists.
Sitting on your ass and getting a check for doing dick-all, whether that be from the governemnt for voting the Party line, OR from the brokers for speculating in pig-shampoo futures, seems to be a common destination for the true-believers on both sides.
"They're not the least concerned about the sewer worker or the tomato picker forced to provide his functional plumbing or his food."
Of course not. Nobody is BUT the sewer worker or the tomato picker.
The whole merry-go-round works as it must because of self-interest.
It's in the self-interest of the Rich and Famous to ensure that the proles' lot isn't TOO dire, otherwise BAD THINGS happen.
Proles stop shelling out money to see movies, and stop buying Buicks.
Enough of this happens, and some of the Rich become No Longer Rich.
If it goes too far, some of the Famous become Dead.
Believe in Socialism? Support it? Decry it? It doesn't give a shit.
It's like the weather, it is unavoidable.
Best to recognize it and deal with it as best you can.
"I'm sick of watching politicians and capitalists continually screwing over the little person."
Ahh, the calls for Socialism continues in the name of The Little People! Just how does Socialism help the "little people?" It doesn't, and it never will as Socialism isn't concerned about the people, only about the State itself.
Do you think that Socialism is the only hope for the "little people?" Think again.
Under Socialism, is no individuality allowed in the social order. All members of society exist for and serve only the needs of the society, the society doesn't exist for and serve the needs of the individual or even groups of individuals. Individual needs are not recognized, only the needs of society as a whole are recognized and if the needs of that society is counter to the needs of the individuals, well, too bad. Is this what you would consider beneficial to the "little people?"
Under Socialism, personal choice and personal freedom do not exist. All segments of society are rigidly controlled and all members are assigned their duties to serve that society regardless of individual preferences. You can not choose your dwellings, they are assigned to you as dictated by the State. You can not choose your career, you job is assigned to you as dictated by the State. You can't even choose your food, that food is alloted to you as dictated by the State. This is hardly beneficial to the "little people."
Some people claim that there has not been "true" Socialism and they're right. "True" Socialism can not exist due to the very structure of the social system itself. Under Socialism there is no citizen involvement in government which leads to the checks and balances that limits the tendency for dictators to achieve and maintain control of that government. In this social order, the ruling members are not elected by the citizens, they are selected by other ruling members. There is no transparency of government as the government itself controls all media and is the soul provider of public information. Since there is no citizen involvement in choosing who will represent them and since the citizens do not have the ability to publicly discuss and debate how the government should best serve them, this will inevitably lead to dictatorships as history has proven time and time again. Once again, this is hardly beneficial to the "little people."
When it comes to the "little people," Socialism is the worst choice, not the best.
"Believe in Socialism? Support it? Decry it? It doesn't give a shit.
It's like the weather, it is unavoidable."
That's not true. No political or social system is "unavoidable" as society can, and has, rejected any type of social system which fails to serve their needs. America is a good example. Our system of government predates Socialism and will no doubt survive long after the last Socialist government collapses and Socialism is relegated to the pages of history as yet another failed system of government.
It's only when a system system of government is forced upon people that such a system can be described as "unavoidable" and history has show time and time again such forced adherence to any social system will lead to the destruction of said system. Too bad the collapse of such a forced system usually involved the death and destruction of the people said system was trying to protect.
Not only does Socialism = Applied Boredom (as evidenced by the boring zombies in this boring video) but Socialism is also equal to Mass Slavery.
There hasn't been socialism in the United States for about 150 years but everywhere socialism thrives, people live worse lives than slaves. Unless they are the ones in power.
Gunslinger nails it here:
"That's why it is usually the intellectuals...(not the intelligent!) who admire Socialism."
Exactly. One of the realities of liberalism is that it is impossible to live in reality and remain liberal. You absolutely must surround yourself with some sort of non-reality.
The ultra-wealthy - if they inherited it rather than worked for it - are liberal. Hollywood actors? Liberal. Career academics? Liberal.
The commonality is obvious: all have arranged their lives to carefully avoid reality.
Once you mature, work for a living, and come to understand reality - you don't stay liberal for long, and you certainly don't embrace Socialism.
This, of course, is why I always laugh at DU liberals: a nice-sized chunk of them will end up voting conservative someday. I guarantee it. Unless they remain in one of those groups or a similar demographic. Or - of course - stay in one of the groups that benefits from the hand-out mentality.
Of course academics like socialism: it has no real-world impact on them. They can't even imagine the realistic impact of socialism on actual people.
What liberals never understand is that socialism and capitalism both fail to meet their theoretical potential as soon as the theories meet real life. But capitalism is far superior because it at least takes real-life into account: it assumes people will work in their own best interests.
Socialism is based on non-reality. That's precisely why, every time its utilized as a form of governance, it always ends up as either a dull, lifeless, destroyer of creativity and innovation ... or as a breeder of atrocious abuses of a population.
It really is hilarious that the one person in that thread who really tried real-world communism, the guy who lived in the commune, understands this point perfectly.
He supported "private ownership, responsibility ... and community involvement." And he's exactly right.
And though he'd be loathe to admit it, he just described the most fundamental core of conservatism.
Ray said:
"When it comes to the "little people," Socialism is the worst choice, not the best."
Exactly right, and history proves this beyond doubt.
It's the biggest and funniest irony of beliefs like those found in the DU thread.
Under socialism, the situation they pretend to hate - power in the hands of the few, oppression of the many - always, always gets far, far worse.
Under capitalism, even in the worst system, at least the little guy has a chance. Under socialism, at least as its been seen thus far, there is no chance at all for that little guy.
And in a socialist state, he usually doesn't even have the freedom to complain about it. At least capitalism has that ... right, DU? ;)
Socialisim is an unnatural act!
Its complete avoidance and negation of the need inside MOST human beings to strive, to be individuals, to see that their own hard work can in fact improve their lives coupled with our "inalienable rights" to life, liberty and the persute of happiness destines socialism to the ash heap of history, where it belongs!
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" is the essence of socialisim/communism and embodies the root falicy of both.
This is irrespective of what they have produced and in that, all ambition is stifled/quashed, dreams no longer drive the future.
Without that ambition, without individual responsiblity, dreams and entrepreneurship, society stagnates and eventually dies.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
Capitalism = Freedom and that is what America is about however when money and power get involved they need to be checked and it seems that a mix of Capitalism and some Socialism works best because people are not born into a level playing field. It's more abstract and complex than having pure Capitalism or pure Socialism. It takes human reason to calculate and debate how to keep the balance working as the economy changes as well as challenges arise.
Socialism has been tried in this country and found wanting before anyone even called it by that name. In 1627, William Bradford, governor of the Plymouth colony renegotiated the Plymouth contract. Before, all property had been held in common, and the people had equal share of the produce, no matter how much they had contributed.
aafter the renegotiation, people held their own property.
He must have gotten tired of sponging off the Apponaugs, and vice versa.
ray:
"America is a good example. Our system of government predates Socialism and will no doubt survive long after the last Socialist government collapses and Socialism is relegated to the pages of history as yet another failed system of government."
A good example of what?
Are youat all familiar with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal?
Pink as can be, bubba. Socialist to the roots of it.
JFK and LBJ's "New Frontiers" and "Great Society"?
Lifestyle subsidies...checks from the government
Oh, and you are no doubt familiar with agribusiness and the proce supports and subsidies programs there?
That's some REAL Free Trade right there, podnuh.
Any idea how much Americans overpay for sugar and peanuts, among other "set-asides"?
Why no....you don't. That's the point.
America is a good example of a Socialist state when the starting point is from the Capitalist extreme, rather than the Communist pole.
We just never, ever, ever CALL it what it is.
I dont think Bilgeman is pro-Socialism. I think his point is that the masses really dont want to work and will lean on those who do for the money ... ergo: socialism
Am I correct BMan?
Hey libtards - you have socialist paradise just south of Florida.
rodolfo:
I'm VERY pro-weather...until it rains on my picnic, and then I oppose it.
You gots it.
Nice new format, PJ. Looks good.
And by the way, congrats on the Funniest Blog nomination, and for managing to get so many votes.
Somehow in all that phony outrage, people forget just how many you did get, and how badly that other blog had to cheat to win.
Truth is that obviously you shouldn't have even been close. You won. They lost. And they know it.
Plus, watching the loony left get all atwitter is such good entertainment.
Testing the new format.
Y'know, that exact same set of "values",(substituting "profits and dividends" for the "state support" part), could be validly ascribed to capitalists.
Sitting on your ass and getting a check for doing dick-all, whether that be from the governemnt for voting the Party line, OR from the brokers for speculating in pig-shampoo futures, seems to be a common destination for the true-believers on both sides.
Actually, that person is NOT doing "dick-all". First, the majority...the middle class, which seems to be the group the left is trying to sell Commie Cookies to, (and really the very poor fall into the government safety net and are, thus, living in a socialist state; the very rich need no safety net) can't just sit and get a check for doing nothing. You are talking about a very, very small segment of society...socialist countries have them too (there I believe they're called "the government"). In order to make enough money to invest, one needs to earn enough DISPOSABLE income to risk losing it. For MOST of us "investing" is done while we are still doing other productive work, through 401K's, IRAs, mutual funds, and even some individual trading through companies that cater to individuals with small investment amounts (Scottrade, Ameritrade, etc.)
Those with enough money to invest as a main source of income have usually already made money some other way. They also risk more than you or I with our 401K's ever will. While these people can (and do)make a ton of money...it's not without a certain amount of work...research about an industry, who owns said company, what is their investment buying, etc. They also can (and do) lose large sums of money. If they're willing to take the risk, more power to them. But lets face it, they are the exceptions and not the rule.
If you want to have an intelligent, productive discussion about economic systems and political philosophies, fine. But when you take an extreme, i.e. someone with the money to sit and do "dick-all" (here I thought that was referring to a porn star) while collecting dividend checks, and pretend it's the norm, that accomplishes nothing. It might work at DU, but perhaps we could raise the rationality and intelligence quotient here.
The other thing that really irks me about the proponents of socialism on the left, is how you don't seem to have those expectations of your own "rich". About 80% of the richest members of the Senate are democrats...why aren't they turning their excess over to the government if they believe it (i.e. they) can do such a better job with money earned by citizens? There may be laws that say you have to pay taxes, but there's none that restrict the amount you CAN pay.
What about George Soros, Peter Lewis, Warren Buffet...all three are richer than God, all spew socialist drivel...all are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is (not even when a dem is in power). Contributing to moveon.org is NOT the same thing as using their money to support "economic" equality. Regardless of what you think about Iraq or General Patraeus, paying to take out full page ads in the NYT that say "General Betray-us" does "dick-all" to pay for anyone's health care or feed the poor.
How about all those Hollywood liberals, especially the ones who post on HuffingtonPost so they can tell the rest of us what to think (Lord knows, playing a communist dictator in a "feel good" movie or doing the Cha-Cha with Chavez so you can bash your country and your president counts for experience in their minds) in their gated communities (heck, most of them don't even want us mere mortals walking along "their" stretch of beach, let alone share the wealth? You pooled the excess wealth (while leaving them a "livable" wage...I'll let you decide what that is) of all those I just mentioned and invested safely (government bonds, CD's, etc.) you'd have enough to pay for the universal health care that seems to be the new mantra now that "save the whales" is passe. You hold those on your side with the resources to make all your socialist fantasies come true to the ideals they spew just so you'll vote for the person with the "D" behind their name and then come talk to us on the right...which actually contains the true middle class. Look it up...the democrats are the new party of the wealthy.
delilah:
" It might work at DU, but perhaps we could raise the rationality and intelligence quotient here."
Fair enough.
You go first.
Please 'splain the difference between "investing" and "speculating"...and "work".
The we can examine modern media marketing techniques employed in persuading the working masses to "invest" their "disposable income" in speculatory schemes.
We can use the Scottrade helicopter as a learning aid.
The point is that true investing involves research and oversight, and is indeed work, and therefore a return is due for the labor involved.
Speculation is gambling, and is not.
Speculation is sold as "investing"...but it isn't.
Sadly, that IS the norm.
Gamblers do dick-all, other than enriching brokers...and whining that they should get a tax deduction for their "investment" in a high-falutin' version of worthless Lottery Tickets.
Man, who DOESN'T want to live in a slave state? Yay socialism!
"Are youat all familiar with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal?"
Yes, I am. I am also familiar that most people do not benefit from this "new deal" at all, especially today. Even the farm subsidies you cite do not extend to more than just a small segment of farm production. For example, grain production is subsided, cranberry production is not. This is more of a case of politicians catering to the grain farmers lobby than a case of government control of a sector of our economy. Most people, farmers included, do not rely on the government to provide for them, they actually work and pay taxes. They choose their jobs, their homes, their associations, and even their representatives in government. None of this would be possible in a Socialist system.
The "new deal" may be considered Socialism as it is the government that is providing for people in a few cases, but it is the people themselves that create the wealth that the government is dependent upon to provide the "new deal" entitlements. The government does not create this wealth, as it would in a Socialist government, it merely collects it from the citizens, as it does in most governments. Yes, I believe that the government collects too much sometimes, but our government is still dependent upon the citizens to generate wealth, it isn't the other way around as you would expect in a Socialist system.
America, despite the fears or hopes of a lot of people, is not controlled by a Socialist system of government and as long as we, the people, remain in control of the economy, the social environment, and even the government itself, it never will. We, the people, enjoy our personal freedoms and our right to make our own choices too much to allow anyone to take them away, even for "our own good."
Does bilgeman actually KNOW anyone who does "dick-all" and makes a ton of money?
Every "rich" person I know, works like hell. Has always worked like hell. Takes his work home with him, lives his work, loves his work.
You notice a recurring theme here?
WORK.
Only someone totally ignorant of economics can possibly disparage "investing". It is what creates companies, creates jobs, creates goods, creates services, creates entertainment, creates general prosperity.
If nobody "invested", nobody would have a job; no one would eat.
And if you actually believe it is the duty of people to "invest" without the expectation of a return (profit)...I suggest you do your job, and forgo your paycheck.
Absurdity upon absurdity.
Ray:
" I am also familiar that most people do not benefit from this "new deal" at all, especially today."
Ahhh, YOUR homework assignment is to research the TVA, the REA, and nearly ALL of the hydroelectric capacity built in the Western United States.
"This is more of a case of politicians catering to the grain farmers lobby than a case of government control of a sector of our economy."
Oh, I see.
State support of an industry is not Socialism when that support is demanded by the industry.
State support of an industry is only Socialist when it is imposed by the government.
Does that about cover your position?
"The "new deal" may be considered Socialism "
Well, now, that's some progress...you've at least admitted the possibility that there indeed is socialist features to our economic system.
Notice that you conveniently ignored New Frontier and Great Society.
And I hadn't even mentioned Community Development Block Grants, which were a Nixon policy.
"We, the people, enjoy our personal freedoms and our right to make our own choices too much to allow anyone to take them away, even for "our own good.""
I wish you were right, but I'm pretty active in 2nd Amendment issues, and it's an uphill battle convincing the hoplophobes that the Statists are NOT their salvation.
Gunslinger:
"Does bilgeman actually KNOW anyone who does "dick-all" and makes a ton of money?"
Only on commercials for stockbrokers and online trading firms.
"Every "rich" person I know, works like hell. Has always worked like hell. Takes his work home with him, lives his work, loves his work."
Pretty much what I've seen from the millionaires I've known.
"Only someone totally ignorant of economics can possibly disparage "investing"."
Tell me, did you intentionally miss the differentiation I outlined between "investing" and "speculating"?
You can be forgiven if it was unintentional, a lot of folks make that mistake.
If it was intentional, did you just prefer to smackdown the strawman of your own choosing?
See? I told you the true-believer Free Traitors on the Right HATE to hear this stuff.
"I hate to be a fly in the ointment,"
Aah, sorry little man, you're not that important to be a fly.
"The power of the purse."
Is that you Pitt?
"I am basically a socialist."
Aah, no, you're a DUmmie.
"If the 1960's communes were so great, how come we don't still see them in existence today?"
They don't work, OKay.
"We will always have lowlifes that don't pull their own weight,"
Heh, no need to comment on that is there?
Skul
Post a Comment
<< Home