Communism Ascendant

[PoliticalChic]

1. The most elementary, and most definitive proof, that America lost the world war to Soviet Communism is that no one thinks or speaks of communism in the same way that one thinks or speaks of Nazism.


We not only lost to Stalin...but, with Roosevelt at the helm, surrendered without a fight.


Oh...there were some bumps in the road for the Marxists.....Truman awoke from his somnambulism fairly early in his tenure...
...and there was the Cold War, and Reagan's immense victory....

...but, bottom line, the dominant political party today, the Democrat, stands for, essentially, the same things that the Communist Party (CPUSA) espoused.




2. Recently, Evo Morales of Bolivia both proved my point, and proved what a sham the new Pope is, and Dennis Prager (The Pope and the Hammer and Sickle - The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show wrote the following....


"....the Marxist quasi-dictator of Bolivia, Evo Morales, presented Pope Francis with a gift: a carved wooden hammer and sickle cross on which the figure of Christ is crucified.

The pope’s acceptance of Morales’ gift — along with his attacks on capitalism during his Latin American tour — further confirms one of the most troubling moral developments of our time: The Roman Catholic Church is currently led by a man whose social, political and economic views have been shaped by Leftism more than by any other religious or moral system.


3. [This] reconfirms what is probably the single most important development one needs to understand in order to make sense of the contemporary world: The most dynamic religion of the past hundred years has been Leftism — not Christianity or Islam or any other traditional religion. ... regarding traditional religions, Leftism has influenced them — particularly Christianity and Judaism — far more than they have influenced the Left.

4. In terms of evil committed, what is the difference between the hammer and sickle and the swastika? Would the pope receive, let alone keep, a fascist, racist or Nazi sculpture with a crucified Christ on it? Of course not. Yet the hammer and sickle represents more human suffering than all of them combined. The number of people enslaved and murdered under the hammer and sickle dwarfs the number of people enslaved and murdered by any other doctrine in history.





5. [And more, Pope] Francis received this gift from a man (Morales) wearing a picture of Che Guevara on his jacket. Is that, too, not worthy of condemnation by the Vatican? Guevara devoted his life to undermining human liberty and to killing innocents in the name of Communism.

a. [Imagine] a visit to an American museum, American artist Andres Serrano had presented Francis with a gift — his work of art “Piss Christ” — that features a crucifix in a jar of Serrano’s urine?

Would the pope have accepted it? Would he have brought it home?"

 

[deltex1]

Communism beats working for a living. Key plank in the Libtard platform.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Communism beats working for a living. Key plank in the Libtard platform.

...ya' just have to get used to that ring through your nose.

 

[guno]

More posts from the uneducated and fearful on thing they know nothing about

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[JGalt]

Like the acceptance of homosexuality, we've become acclimated to Communism. The old story of "How to Cook a Frog" explains it:

If you throw a frog in boiling water, he'll just jump out. But if you place the frog in lukewarm water and slowly bring it up to a boil, he won't notice the change. Then it'll be too late.

 

[PoliticalChic]

... a carved wooden hammer and sickle cross on which the figure of Christ is crucified.....



6. " There could not have been a gift that more accurately represents this pope’s value system than Christ crucified on a hammer and sickle. First, in a literal sense, that is exactly what Communists have done wherever they have assumed power: crucified Christ by working to violently to destroy Christianity and murder Christians.


Second, in a figurative sense, the gift represents the melange of Christianity and Marxism, precisely what much of the church, again especially in Latin America, and especially this pope stand for.


[This is what is known as 'liberation theology,' the brand that Obama learned at the feet of Reverend Wright.]




[There are] millions of Catholics who feel that their beloved church is being led over a moral and religious cliff by a Leftist pope and innumerable other Leftists among cardinals, bishops and parish priests.




7. When the pope keeps a hammer and sickle crucifix; when the pope declares free market capitalism, the one economic system that has lifted masses of people out of poverty, to be largely evil (“the dung of the devil”);

when Cuba’s Cardinal Jaime Ortega declares that there are no political prisoners in Cuba; and when the pope issues an encyclical on global warming while the oldest Christian communities in the world are exterminated,


.... one cannot turn to the Catholic Church and its pope for moral guidance. On the contrary.
One must fight back."
The Pope and the Hammer and Sickle - The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

 

[konradv]

Communism is dead, but apparently the wingnuts haven't gotten the word.

 

[Bombur]

Socialism is a movement that his its roots in the class conflicts that come from growing income inequality and economic hardship of the working classes. Socialism was initially invented to address the power money will have in both the economy and over government compared to the power of labor and people generally. Socialists feared a world where labor had no say and money mattered more in politics than people. Sound familiar yet? In the past some nations have let these problems get so bad that good people would become so desperate that they would side with monsters. The problems in Germany and Russia proceeding the rise of evil dictators has their roots in the same things socialists complained about but in both cases the solution was not socialism or the empowerment of labor or the every man but the rise of dictators wrapping themselves in lies.

It is very important to prevent that from happening and the key to prevent that from happening is addressing the rise of inequality.

 

[Mr Natural]

Communism is dead, but apparently the wingnuts haven't gotten the word.

They need their favorite "ism" to keep their fear alive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Communism is dead, but apparently the wingnuts haven't gotten the word.

Nah...it simply changed its name to "Democrat Party."

Same thing when John Dewey had the Socialist Party change its name to 'Liberal"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Socialism is a movement that his its roots in the class conflicts that come from growing income inequality and economic hardship of the working classes. Socialism was initially invented to address the power money will have in both the economy and over government compared to the power of labor and people generally. Socialists feared a world where labor had no say and money mattered more in politics than people. Sound familiar yet? In the past some nations have let these problems get so bad that good people would become so desperate that they would side with monsters. The problems in Germany and Russia proceeding the rise of evil dictators has their roots in the same things socialists complained about but in both cases the solution was not socialism or the empowerment of labor or the every man but the rise of dictators wrapping themselves in lies.

It is very important to prevent that from happening and the key to prevent that from happening is addressing the rise of inequality.

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


2. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006


Any inequality that occurs is based on the inequality of human nature.
It was ever so, and will continue to be so.

Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Communism is dead, but apparently the wingnuts haven't gotten the word.

They need their favorite "ism" to keep their fear alive.

You are a fool.

See if you can deny the following: slaughter of human being by the 'ism' you
mean to shrug off....

Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000
14 Liberal Demagoguery Hate and Violence A Compendium

 

[DGS49]

Pope Frank is an abominable pope (I am R.C. from birth). He has been completely taken in by the "Liberation Theology" movement of South America and is using the seat of Peter to promote failed socialist agendas around the world. His persistence in this ideology is confounding indeed considering (1) the religious persecution and repression that has characterized regimes that have more or less adopted his socialist perspectives, and (2) the lack of a single example of a successful nation that has carried out his desired programs.

Sadly, he has a huge blind spot for the economic uplifting of millions around the globe due to nothing more than GREED and CAPITALISM. He fails to see the tens of millions employed in China, Mexico, R.O.Korea, India, Vietnam, and elsewhere as a result of the injection of capitalism into those formerly stagnant economies.

He focuses on the tiny percentage of the world's population who, in his exalted opinion, either have or make TOO MUCH MONEY, apparently with the naïve belief that if these folks were just not so greedy, then everyone at the bottom could be provided for. Just like HRC (who also makes TOO MUCH MONEY for the "value" that she adds).

This pope is treading on very dangerous ground in the U.S. and the few other western nations where the R.C. Church is not yet irrelevant. Most bishops support him (or don't openly criticize him), but most of the lay Catholics I know are pissed at his sophomoric, out-of-touch view of the world. And the people who are hopeful that he will shortly begin accepting divorce, homosexuality, and other non-traditional practices and views will also be sorely disappointed.

If the Episcopal Church USA were not so fucked up, I'd be looking to go there myself.

 

[Bombur]

Socialism is a movement that his its roots in the class conflicts that come from growing income inequality and economic hardship of the working classes. Socialism was initially invented to address the power money will have in both the economy and over government compared to the power of labor and people generally. Socialists feared a world where labor had no say and money mattered more in politics than people. Sound familiar yet? In the past some nations have let these problems get so bad that good people would become so desperate that they would side with monsters. The problems in Germany and Russia proceeding the rise of evil dictators has their roots in the same things socialists complained about but in both cases the solution was not socialism or the empowerment of labor or the every man but the rise of dictators wrapping themselves in lies.

It is very important to prevent that from happening and the key to prevent that from happening is addressing the rise of inequality.

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


2. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006


Any inequality that occurs is based on the inequality of human nature.
It was ever so, and will continue to be so.

Wise up.

In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government. The ideas of the socialists and their fears were not only proven right but governments across the globe have used them in various ways and to varying degrees of success.

As economies develop there are new and different challenges and solutions to think about. In the past unions were absolutely critical in making sure that the economic gains in the economy were shared across the classes. This shifted the power in both the economy and politics towards labor and away from capital. In the age of globalization, automation, the slow death of unions, and a rising service industry power has shifted once again. It has shifted away from large portions of labor and towards capital.

In order for economic progress to continue to be shared economies have become more and more reliant on either mercantilist type practices and/or transfer payments.

 

[Bombur]

Pope Frank is an abominable pope (I am R.C. from birth). He has been completely taken in by the "Liberation Theology" movement of South America and is using the seat of Peter to promote failed socialist agendas around the world. His persistence in this ideology is confounding indeed considering (1) the religious persecution and repression that has characterized regimes that have more or less adopted his socialist perspectives, and (2) the lack of a single example of a successful nation that has carried out his desired programs.

Sadly, he has a huge blind spot for the economic uplifting of millions around the globe due to nothing more than GREED and CAPITALISM. He fails to see the tens of millions employed in China, Mexico, R.O.Korea, India, Vietnam, and elsewhere as a result of the injection of capitalism into those formerly stagnant economies.

He focuses on the tiny percentage of the world's population who, in his exalted opinion, either have or make TOO MUCH MONEY, apparently with the naïve belief that if these folks were just not so greedy, then everyone at the bottom could be provided for. Just like HRC (who also makes TOO MUCH MONEY for the "value" that she adds).

This pope is treading on very dangerous ground in the U.S. and the few other western nations where the R.C. Church is not yet irrelevant. Most bishops support him (or don't openly criticize him), but most of the lay Catholics I know are pissed at his sophomoric, out-of-touch view of the world. And the people who are hopeful that he will shortly begin accepting divorce, homosexuality, and other non-traditional practices and views will also be sorely disappointed.

If the Episcopal Church USA were not so fucked up, I'd be looking to go there myself.

I am sure the pope would be happy with nations taking an approach similar to that of Norway which has had plenty of success with what you would call socialism.

Capitalism is great but it has limits. It is pretty ignorant and "sophomoric" to suggest that any capitalist nation has had success without mentioning how they have also had the government invest heavily into their own people and used government policy to address the shortcomings of capitalism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Socialism is a movement that his its roots in the class conflicts that come from growing income inequality and economic hardship of the working classes. Socialism was initially invented to address the power money will have in both the economy and over government compared to the power of labor and people generally. Socialists feared a world where labor had no say and money mattered more in politics than people. Sound familiar yet? In the past some nations have let these problems get so bad that good people would become so desperate that they would side with monsters. The problems in Germany and Russia proceeding the rise of evil dictators has their roots in the same things socialists complained about but in both cases the solution was not socialism or the empowerment of labor or the every man but the rise of dictators wrapping themselves in lies.

It is very important to prevent that from happening and the key to prevent that from happening is addressing the rise of inequality.

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


2. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006


Any inequality that occurs is based on the inequality of human nature.
It was ever so, and will continue to be so.

Wise up.

In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government. The ideas of the socialists and their fears were not only proven right but governments across the globe have used them in various ways and to varying degrees of success.

As economies develop there are new and different challenges and solutions to think about. In the past unions were absolutely critical in making sure that the economic gains in the economy were shared across the classes. This shifted the power in both the economy and politics towards labor and away from capital. In the age of globalization, automation, the slow death of unions, and a rising service industry power has shifted once again. It has shifted away from large portions of labor and towards capital.

In order for economic progress to continue to be shared economies have become more and more reliant on either mercantilist type practices and/or transfer payments.

Here is the fallacy in your post, right up front.

"In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government."

There is no such attempt to address the bogus 'inequality" in any capitalist system.

There is in a political system, for reasons unrelated to economics.


This may help....take notes:

"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills.That’s what makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News



Now we get to see if you are capable of learning.
Liberals, for the most part.....

.....are not.

 

[Bombur]

Socialism is a movement that his its roots in the class conflicts that come from growing income inequality and economic hardship of the working classes. Socialism was initially invented to address the power money will have in both the economy and over government compared to the power of labor and people generally. Socialists feared a world where labor had no say and money mattered more in politics than people. Sound familiar yet? In the past some nations have let these problems get so bad that good people would become so desperate that they would side with monsters. The problems in Germany and Russia proceeding the rise of evil dictators has their roots in the same things socialists complained about but in both cases the solution was not socialism or the empowerment of labor or the every man but the rise of dictators wrapping themselves in lies.

It is very important to prevent that from happening and the key to prevent that from happening is addressing the rise of inequality.

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


2. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006


Any inequality that occurs is based on the inequality of human nature.
It was ever so, and will continue to be so.

Wise up.

In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government. The ideas of the socialists and their fears were not only proven right but governments across the globe have used them in various ways and to varying degrees of success.

As economies develop there are new and different challenges and solutions to think about. In the past unions were absolutely critical in making sure that the economic gains in the economy were shared across the classes. This shifted the power in both the economy and politics towards labor and away from capital. In the age of globalization, automation, the slow death of unions, and a rising service industry power has shifted once again. It has shifted away from large portions of labor and towards capital.

In order for economic progress to continue to be shared economies have become more and more reliant on either mercantilist type practices and/or transfer payments.

Here is the fallacy in your post, right up front.

"In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government."

There is no such attempt to address the bogus 'inequality" in any capitalist system.

There is in a political system, for reasons unrelated to economics.


This may help....take notes:

"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills.That’swhat makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News



Now we get to see if you are capable of learning.
Liberals, for the most part.....

.....are not.

A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition. You then didn't even really argue against what I actually said. Or whatever you copied and pasted didn't even address what I said.

Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials? I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Socialism is a movement that his its roots in the class conflicts that come from growing income inequality and economic hardship of the working classes. Socialism was initially invented to address the power money will have in both the economy and over government compared to the power of labor and people generally. Socialists feared a world where labor had no say and money mattered more in politics than people. Sound familiar yet? In the past some nations have let these problems get so bad that good people would become so desperate that they would side with monsters. The problems in Germany and Russia proceeding the rise of evil dictators has their roots in the same things socialists complained about but in both cases the solution was not socialism or the empowerment of labor or the every man but the rise of dictators wrapping themselves in lies.

It is very important to prevent that from happening and the key to prevent that from happening is addressing the rise of inequality.

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


2. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006


Any inequality that occurs is based on the inequality of human nature.
It was ever so, and will continue to be so.

Wise up.

In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government. The ideas of the socialists and their fears were not only proven right but governments across the globe have used them in various ways and to varying degrees of success.

As economies develop there are new and different challenges and solutions to think about. In the past unions were absolutely critical in making sure that the economic gains in the economy were shared across the classes. This shifted the power in both the economy and politics towards labor and away from capital. In the age of globalization, automation, the slow death of unions, and a rising service industry power has shifted once again. It has shifted away from large portions of labor and towards capital.

In order for economic progress to continue to be shared economies have become more and more reliant on either mercantilist type practices and/or transfer payments.

Here is the fallacy in your post, right up front.

"In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government."

There is no such attempt to address the bogus 'inequality" in any capitalist system.

There is in a political system, for reasons unrelated to economics.


This may help....take notes:

"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills.That’swhat makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News



Now we get to see if you are capable of learning.
Liberals, for the most part.....

.....are not.

A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition. You then didn't even really argue against what I actually said. Or whatever you copied and pasted didn't even address what I said.

Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials? I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff.

1. "A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition."
You have yet to provide any 'statement of fact.'
I just proved that.

2. "Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials?"
Screaming 'cut and paste' is a Liberal's attempt to avoid confronting the facts that I provided.

I notice that you weren't able to provide examples of 'slanted' aspects in the piece provided.
That pretty much ends any possibility of cachet on your part, huh?


3. "I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff."
Yet, here you are exhibiting the usual Liberal plagiarism.....mouthing what the NYTimes, the DNC, MSNBC, and the Communist Manifesto tell you to.

And, as history has shown, the result of every totalitarian fantasy is death and oppression.
So....where is your 'thinking for yourself'?
Not in evidence.

Hey...remember when I said Liberals are rarely capable of learning?
Thank for proving it.


See ya.'

 

[Bombur]

Socialism is a movement that his its roots in the class conflicts that come from growing income inequality and economic hardship of the working classes. Socialism was initially invented to address the power money will have in both the economy and over government compared to the power of labor and people generally. Socialists feared a world where labor had no say and money mattered more in politics than people. Sound familiar yet? In the past some nations have let these problems get so bad that good people would become so desperate that they would side with monsters. The problems in Germany and Russia proceeding the rise of evil dictators has their roots in the same things socialists complained about but in both cases the solution was not socialism or the empowerment of labor or the every man but the rise of dictators wrapping themselves in lies.

It is very important to prevent that from happening and the key to prevent that from happening is addressing the rise of inequality.

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


2. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006


Any inequality that occurs is based on the inequality of human nature.
It was ever so, and will continue to be so.

Wise up.

In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government. The ideas of the socialists and their fears were not only proven right but governments across the globe have used them in various ways and to varying degrees of success.

As economies develop there are new and different challenges and solutions to think about. In the past unions were absolutely critical in making sure that the economic gains in the economy were shared across the classes. This shifted the power in both the economy and politics towards labor and away from capital. In the age of globalization, automation, the slow death of unions, and a rising service industry power has shifted once again. It has shifted away from large portions of labor and towards capital.

In order for economic progress to continue to be shared economies have become more and more reliant on either mercantilist type practices and/or transfer payments.

Here is the fallacy in your post, right up front.

"In every "capitalist" system today there are significant measures taken to address inequality by the government."

There is no such attempt to address the bogus 'inequality" in any capitalist system.

There is in a political system, for reasons unrelated to economics.


This may help....take notes:

"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills.That’swhat makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News



Now we get to see if you are capable of learning.
Liberals, for the most part.....

.....are not.

A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition. You then didn't even really argue against what I actually said. Or whatever you copied and pasted didn't even address what I said.

Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials? I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff.

1. "A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy by definition."
You have yet to provide any 'statement of fact.'
I just proved that.

2. "Are you only capable of copying and pasting slanted editorials?"
Screaming 'cut and paste' is a Liberal's attempt to avoid confronting the facts that I provided.

I notice that you weren't able to provide examples of 'slanted' aspects in the piece provided.
That pretty much ends any possibility of cachet on your part, huh?


3. "I am not really interested in arguing with someone who can't think for themselves enough to write their own stuff."
Yet, here you are exhibiting the usual Liberal plagiarism.....mouthing what the NYTimes, the DNC, MSNBC, and the Communist Manifesto tell you to.

And, as history has shown, the result of every totalitarian fantasy is death and oppression.
So....where is your 'thinking for yourself'?
Not in evidence.

Hey...remember when I said Liberals are rarely capable of learning?
Thank for proving it.


See ya.'

Everything you just said is nonsensical. It is either factually incorrect, irrelevant, or a blatant straw man fallacy. Without copying and pasting it is clear you can't really follow along in a conversation well enough to have one. I will give you another chance to address the points that I already made. The odds don't seem to be in your favor.