CDZ The Siren Song of Socialism

[MacTheKnife]

I once asked a lady(avowed socialist) why she believed in Socialism....she replied---because 'I always believed in Santa Claus" ......whilst humorous perhaps I think a lot of college students and other naive types have that same logic.


'Mr Sanders went to Hollywood. And he got a good reception too. That is, super-liberal Bernie Sanders, Democrat from Vermont who believes in socialistic policies, has a message that apparently resonates with the limousine liberals in Tinseltown.

His platform sounds appealing to the naive, until you ask the question how will all this be paid for? And what happens if you don't happen to agree with that particular policy?

Everywhere the siren song of socialism is received, even with supposedly the best intentions, it fails. I write this with the caveat that I'm not claiming Hollywood types embrace atheistic communism with its bloody track record. But ideas have consequences.

Socialism violates two of God's Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not steal (even the government) and Thou shalt not covet. By definition, socialism covets thy neighbor's goods. And it relies upon the force of government to redistribute those goods.

Furthermore, it contradicts human nature; thus, it always fails. This is not to be confused with Christian charity, which is voluntary and greatly to be encouraged.

Can you name one spot on earth where socialism has ever worked?

Joshua Muravchik was the national chairman of the Young People's Socialist League from 1968 to 1973. But he became disillusioned with socialism. In 2002, he wrote an excellent book on the subject, called Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.

I had the privilege to interview him for a TV special, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. He told me, "Socialism has kind of proved itself to be bankrupt, but it's not dying out in the intellectual world."

In his book, he writes, "From New Harmony [Robert Owen's failed experiment of a socialist commune in 19th century Indiana] to Moscow, from Dar es Salaam to London, the story of socialism was the story of a dream unrealized, a word that would not be made flesh."

He concludes, "By no means all socialists were killers or amoral. Many were sincere humanitarians; mostly these were adherents of democratic socialism. But democratic socialism turned out to be a contradiction in terms, for where socialists proceeded democratically, they found themselves on a trajectory that took them further and further from socialism."

He adds, "Only once did democratic socialists manage to create socialism. That was the kibbutz [in Israel]. And after they had experienced it, they chose democratically to abolish it."

Meanwhile, the USSR was among the most ambitious attempts to force socialism on a country. Lenin and Stalin had to crack a few skulls to do this. Quite a few. Of course, they created a government all based on atheism. Under big government schemes, the government is god. So there is no place for other gods. Religious freedom and true socialism don't mix.

Before being disillusioned by Stalin and the failed USSR, many leftists from the West, "fellow travelers," went to the "worker's paradise" to celebrate the breakdown of traditional society---capitalism and private ownership, the traditional family, and religious influence in society.

This reminds me of Eugene and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, a husband and wife team who had been Communists, until they became disillusioned with the whole thing.

When the Soviet Union finally imploded in the early 1990s, they wrote: "When it all collapsed, the question was, After seventy years, what do we have to show for it? Especially when it became clear that, even on a basic level, the system didn't deliver the goods, the one thing it was supposed to do. So what we had to show for it was tens of millions of corpses." That may be the extreme, but so also was Mao's China.

Socialism in any form is a bad idea. Everywhere it is tried it brings misery and sometimes death. If Hollywood were more honest, we'd see some epic movies on the failures of life under the socialists and communists. Why would we want to go down this road again, even partially? Been there, done that.'

Hollywood and the Siren Song of Socialism

 

[Mac1958]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

 

[Tehon]

I once asked a lady(avowed socialist) why she believed in Socialism....she replied---because 'I always believed in Santa Claus" ......whilst humorous perhaps I think a lot of college students and other naive types have that same logic.

That is illogical. Man can't survive unless he reproduces his means of existence. Only labor can do that. Not Santa Claus.

PS. I am an avowed socialist.

 

[expat_panama]

...Man can't survive unless he reproduces his means of existence. Only labor can do that. Not Santa Claus.

PS. I am an avowed socialist.

Many say that labor is more important than capital but people work at both equally. One of the main things that distinguishes humans from animals is tool making --people work to create capital which in turn makes labor so much more productive.

Moving beyond soundbites/slogans/bumperstickers we need to decide what actual specific policies we need if we want to say our government was "socialist". AOC was asked if her idea of socialism was what we've seen in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. and she said she wanted what they have in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the UK.

So she likes policies in countries that abolish the minimum wage, privatize social security, and slash business taxes. If that's our definition of socialism then I'm a socialist too.

 

[task0778]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

It's hard to be thoughtful when the other side is constantly calling you a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy selfish bastard. And it's hard to be convincing when the other side is offering all kinds of free stuff, such as health care, college education, a living wage, just about free everything. I can't think of anything that the lib/dems aren't promising to provide at no cost to you. What else can the Right say beyond the inescapable fact that things like the Green New Deal are not possible. Especially when the MSM, academia, and Hollywood are against you.

 

[Mac1958]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

It's hard to be thoughtful when the other side is constantly calling you a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy selfish bastard. And it's hard to be convincing when the other side is offering all kinds of free stuff, such as health care, college education, a living wage, just about free everything. I can't think of anything that the lib/dems aren't promising to provide at no cost to you. What else can the Right say beyond the inescapable fact that things like the Green New Deal are not possible. Especially when the MSM, academia, and Hollywood are against you.

There are plenty of people in between the two extremes.

The illiberal, authoritarian Regressive Left isn't going to budge. But you're in competition with them for a lot of people who could change their minds and/or decide elections.

The word "socialism" just doesn't scare them any more. You'll need something better.
.

 

[task0778]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

It's hard to be thoughtful when the other side is constantly calling you a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy selfish bastard. And it's hard to be convincing when the other side is offering all kinds of free stuff, such as health care, college education, a living wage, just about free everything. I can't think of anything that the lib/dems aren't promising to provide at no cost to you. What else can the Right say beyond the inescapable fact that things like the Green New Deal are not possible. Especially when the MSM, academia, and Hollywood are against you.

There are plenty of people in between the two extremes.

The illiberal, authoritarian Regressive Left isn't going to budge. But you're in competition with them for a lot of people who could change their minds and/or decide elections.

The word "socialism" just doesn't scare them any more. You'll need something better.
.

Like what? If most Americans aren't scared by the idea of socialism, then it seems we are headed down the same road that so many other societies tried to their immense sorrow. What is the Right supposed to do, they can't promise anything more than the freedom to make your own choices with no guarantee of success. Too many people don't realize the slippery slope that is socialism, the loss of basic freedoms like speech, press, property, and everything else in the Bill of Rights. Especially young people, you can't believe the lessons of the past and that it can't happen here. Maybe not to the extent it did elsewhere, but if you look at the erosion of our rights and freedoms just over the past century or so, and what the Dems want to do if they get elected, well it seems kinda scary to me.

 

[2aguy]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

It's hard to be thoughtful when the other side is constantly calling you a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy selfish bastard. And it's hard to be convincing when the other side is offering all kinds of free stuff, such as health care, college education, a living wage, just about free everything. I can't think of anything that the lib/dems aren't promising to provide at no cost to you. What else can the Right say beyond the inescapable fact that things like the Green New Deal are not possible. Especially when the MSM, academia, and Hollywood are against you.

There are plenty of people in between the two extremes.

The illiberal, authoritarian Regressive Left isn't going to budge. But you're in competition with them for a lot of people who could change their minds and/or decide elections.

The word "socialism" just doesn't scare them any more. You'll need something better.
.

Like what? If most Americans aren't scared by the idea of socialism, then it seems we are headed down the same road that so many other societies tried to their immense sorrow. What is the Right supposed to do, they can't promise anything more than the freedom to make your own choices with no guarantee of success. Too many people don't realize the slippery slope that is socialism, the loss of basic freedoms like speech, press, property, and everything else in the Bill of Rights. Especially young people, you can't believe the lessons of the past and that it can't happen here. Maybe not to the extent it did elsewhere, but if you look at the erosion of our rights and freedoms just over the past century or so, and what the Dems want to do if they get elected, well it seems kinda scary to me.

The problem is that the destruction of socialism can take a while, depending on the safeguards and wealth of the country that is implementing it. We have wealth, so it is easy to think that the government can pay for everything...it is only when the people run out of money that the consequences of socialism hit the morons who supported it....then the goon squads show up, the mass graves....

 

[danielpalos]

I once asked a lady(avowed socialist) why she believed in Socialism....she replied---because 'I always believed in Santa Claus" ......whilst humorous perhaps I think a lot of college students and other naive types have that same logic.


'Mr Sanders went to Hollywood. And he got a good reception too. That is, super-liberal Bernie Sanders, Democrat from Vermont who believes in socialistic policies, has a message that apparently resonates with the limousine liberals in Tinseltown.

His platform sounds appealing to the naive, until you ask the question how will all this be paid for? And what happens if you don't happen to agree with that particular policy?

Everywhere the siren song of socialism is received, even with supposedly the best intentions, it fails. I write this with the caveat that I'm not claiming Hollywood types embrace atheistic communism with its bloody track record. But ideas have consequences.

Socialism violates two of God's Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not steal (even the government) and Thou shalt not covet. By definition, socialism covets thy neighbor's goods. And it relies upon the force of government to redistribute those goods.

Furthermore, it contradicts human nature; thus, it always fails. This is not to be confused with Christian charity, which is voluntary and greatly to be encouraged.

Can you name one spot on earth where socialism has ever worked?

Joshua Muravchik was the national chairman of the Young People's Socialist League from 1968 to 1973. But he became disillusioned with socialism. In 2002, he wrote an excellent book on the subject, called Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.

I had the privilege to interview him for a TV special, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. He told me, "Socialism has kind of proved itself to be bankrupt, but it's not dying out in the intellectual world."

In his book, he writes, "From New Harmony [Robert Owen's failed experiment of a socialist commune in 19th century Indiana] to Moscow, from Dar es Salaam to London, the story of socialism was the story of a dream unrealized, a word that would not be made flesh."

He concludes, "By no means all socialists were killers or amoral. Many were sincere humanitarians; mostly these were adherents of democratic socialism. But democratic socialism turned out to be a contradiction in terms, for where socialists proceeded democratically, they found themselves on a trajectory that took them further and further from socialism."

He adds, "Only once did democratic socialists manage to create socialism. That was the kibbutz [in Israel]. And after they had experienced it, they chose democratically to abolish it."

Meanwhile, the USSR was among the most ambitious attempts to force socialism on a country. Lenin and Stalin had to crack a few skulls to do this. Quite a few. Of course, they created a government all based on atheism. Under big government schemes, the government is god. So there is no place for other gods. Religious freedom and true socialism don't mix.

Before being disillusioned by Stalin and the failed USSR, many leftists from the West, "fellow travelers," went to the "worker's paradise" to celebrate the breakdown of traditional society---capitalism and private ownership, the traditional family, and religious influence in society.

This reminds me of Eugene and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, a husband and wife team who had been Communists, until they became disillusioned with the whole thing.

When the Soviet Union finally imploded in the early 1990s, they wrote: "When it all collapsed, the question was, After seventy years, what do we have to show for it? Especially when it became clear that, even on a basic level, the system didn't deliver the goods, the one thing it was supposed to do. So what we had to show for it was tens of millions of corpses." That may be the extreme, but so also was Mao's China.

Socialism in any form is a bad idea. Everywhere it is tried it brings misery and sometimes death. If Hollywood were more honest, we'd see some epic movies on the failures of life under the socialists and communists. Why would we want to go down this road again, even partially? Been there, done that.'

Hollywood and the Siren Song of Socialism

the sky is always falling, according to chicken little on the right wing.

everybody knows it takes socialism to create a first world economy.

 

[2aguy]

I once asked a lady(avowed socialist) why she believed in Socialism....she replied---because 'I always believed in Santa Claus" ......whilst humorous perhaps I think a lot of college students and other naive types have that same logic.


'Mr Sanders went to Hollywood. And he got a good reception too. That is, super-liberal Bernie Sanders, Democrat from Vermont who believes in socialistic policies, has a message that apparently resonates with the limousine liberals in Tinseltown.

His platform sounds appealing to the naive, until you ask the question how will all this be paid for? And what happens if you don't happen to agree with that particular policy?

Everywhere the siren song of socialism is received, even with supposedly the best intentions, it fails. I write this with the caveat that I'm not claiming Hollywood types embrace atheistic communism with its bloody track record. But ideas have consequences.

Socialism violates two of God's Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not steal (even the government) and Thou shalt not covet. By definition, socialism covets thy neighbor's goods. And it relies upon the force of government to redistribute those goods.

Furthermore, it contradicts human nature; thus, it always fails. This is not to be confused with Christian charity, which is voluntary and greatly to be encouraged.

Can you name one spot on earth where socialism has ever worked?

Joshua Muravchik was the national chairman of the Young People's Socialist League from 1968 to 1973. But he became disillusioned with socialism. In 2002, he wrote an excellent book on the subject, called Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.

I had the privilege to interview him for a TV special, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. He told me, "Socialism has kind of proved itself to be bankrupt, but it's not dying out in the intellectual world."

In his book, he writes, "From New Harmony [Robert Owen's failed experiment of a socialist commune in 19th century Indiana] to Moscow, from Dar es Salaam to London, the story of socialism was the story of a dream unrealized, a word that would not be made flesh."

He concludes, "By no means all socialists were killers or amoral. Many were sincere humanitarians; mostly these were adherents of democratic socialism. But democratic socialism turned out to be a contradiction in terms, for where socialists proceeded democratically, they found themselves on a trajectory that took them further and further from socialism."

He adds, "Only once did democratic socialists manage to create socialism. That was the kibbutz [in Israel]. And after they had experienced it, they chose democratically to abolish it."

Meanwhile, the USSR was among the most ambitious attempts to force socialism on a country. Lenin and Stalin had to crack a few skulls to do this. Quite a few. Of course, they created a government all based on atheism. Under big government schemes, the government is god. So there is no place for other gods. Religious freedom and true socialism don't mix.

Before being disillusioned by Stalin and the failed USSR, many leftists from the West, "fellow travelers," went to the "worker's paradise" to celebrate the breakdown of traditional society---capitalism and private ownership, the traditional family, and religious influence in society.

This reminds me of Eugene and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, a husband and wife team who had been Communists, until they became disillusioned with the whole thing.

When the Soviet Union finally imploded in the early 1990s, they wrote: "When it all collapsed, the question was, After seventy years, what do we have to show for it? Especially when it became clear that, even on a basic level, the system didn't deliver the goods, the one thing it was supposed to do. So what we had to show for it was tens of millions of corpses." That may be the extreme, but so also was Mao's China.

Socialism in any form is a bad idea. Everywhere it is tried it brings misery and sometimes death. If Hollywood were more honest, we'd see some epic movies on the failures of life under the socialists and communists. Why would we want to go down this road again, even partially? Been there, done that.'

Hollywood and the Siren Song of Socialism

the sky is always falling, according to chicken little on the right wing.

everybody knows it takes socialism to create a first world economy.

Yes....just ask the people of Venezuela...

And no, the nordic countries are not socialist countries...

 

[Tehon]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

It's hard to be thoughtful when the other side is constantly calling you a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy selfish bastard. And it's hard to be convincing when the other side is offering all kinds of free stuff, such as health care, college education, a living wage, just about free everything. I can't think of anything that the lib/dems aren't promising to provide at no cost to you. What else can the Right say beyond the inescapable fact that things like the Green New Deal are not possible. Especially when the MSM, academia, and Hollywood are against you.

There are plenty of people in between the two extremes.

The illiberal, authoritarian Regressive Left isn't going to budge. But you're in competition with them for a lot of people who could change their minds and/or decide elections.

The word "socialism" just doesn't scare them any more. You'll need something better.
.

Like what? If most Americans aren't scared by the idea of socialism, then it seems we are headed down the same road that so many other societies tried to their immense sorrow. What is the Right supposed to do, they can't promise anything more than the freedom to make your own choices with no guarantee of success. Too many people don't realize the slippery slope that is socialism, the loss of basic freedoms like speech, press, property, and everything else in the Bill of Rights. Especially young people, you can't believe the lessons of the past and that it can't happen here. Maybe not to the extent it did elsewhere, but if you look at the erosion of our rights and freedoms just over the past century or so, and what the Dems want to do if they get elected, well it seems kinda scary to me.

Socialism doesn't cause the erosion of freedom. Concentrated capital does.

 

[TNHarley]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

Sounds like a lost cause in the first place. You would think liberty would be enough
Entitled, lazy americans

 

[Mac1958]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

Sounds like a lost cause in the first place. You would think liberty would be enough
Entitled, lazy americans

Yeah, my feeling is that our prosperity and standard of living have made us fat, lazy and entitled.

We don't appreciate what we have, so we're not afraid to lose it.
.

 

[danielpalos]

I once asked a lady(avowed socialist) why she believed in Socialism....she replied---because 'I always believed in Santa Claus" ......whilst humorous perhaps I think a lot of college students and other naive types have that same logic.


'Mr Sanders went to Hollywood. And he got a good reception too. That is, super-liberal Bernie Sanders, Democrat from Vermont who believes in socialistic policies, has a message that apparently resonates with the limousine liberals in Tinseltown.

His platform sounds appealing to the naive, until you ask the question how will all this be paid for? And what happens if you don't happen to agree with that particular policy?

Everywhere the siren song of socialism is received, even with supposedly the best intentions, it fails. I write this with the caveat that I'm not claiming Hollywood types embrace atheistic communism with its bloody track record. But ideas have consequences.

Socialism violates two of God's Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not steal (even the government) and Thou shalt not covet. By definition, socialism covets thy neighbor's goods. And it relies upon the force of government to redistribute those goods.

Furthermore, it contradicts human nature; thus, it always fails. This is not to be confused with Christian charity, which is voluntary and greatly to be encouraged.

Can you name one spot on earth where socialism has ever worked?

Joshua Muravchik was the national chairman of the Young People's Socialist League from 1968 to 1973. But he became disillusioned with socialism. In 2002, he wrote an excellent book on the subject, called Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.

I had the privilege to interview him for a TV special, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. He told me, "Socialism has kind of proved itself to be bankrupt, but it's not dying out in the intellectual world."

In his book, he writes, "From New Harmony [Robert Owen's failed experiment of a socialist commune in 19th century Indiana] to Moscow, from Dar es Salaam to London, the story of socialism was the story of a dream unrealized, a word that would not be made flesh."

He concludes, "By no means all socialists were killers or amoral. Many were sincere humanitarians; mostly these were adherents of democratic socialism. But democratic socialism turned out to be a contradiction in terms, for where socialists proceeded democratically, they found themselves on a trajectory that took them further and further from socialism."

He adds, "Only once did democratic socialists manage to create socialism. That was the kibbutz [in Israel]. And after they had experienced it, they chose democratically to abolish it."

Meanwhile, the USSR was among the most ambitious attempts to force socialism on a country. Lenin and Stalin had to crack a few skulls to do this. Quite a few. Of course, they created a government all based on atheism. Under big government schemes, the government is god. So there is no place for other gods. Religious freedom and true socialism don't mix.

Before being disillusioned by Stalin and the failed USSR, many leftists from the West, "fellow travelers," went to the "worker's paradise" to celebrate the breakdown of traditional society---capitalism and private ownership, the traditional family, and religious influence in society.

This reminds me of Eugene and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, a husband and wife team who had been Communists, until they became disillusioned with the whole thing.

When the Soviet Union finally imploded in the early 1990s, they wrote: "When it all collapsed, the question was, After seventy years, what do we have to show for it? Especially when it became clear that, even on a basic level, the system didn't deliver the goods, the one thing it was supposed to do. So what we had to show for it was tens of millions of corpses." That may be the extreme, but so also was Mao's China.

Socialism in any form is a bad idea. Everywhere it is tried it brings misery and sometimes death. If Hollywood were more honest, we'd see some epic movies on the failures of life under the socialists and communists. Why would we want to go down this road again, even partially? Been there, done that.'

Hollywood and the Siren Song of Socialism

the sky is always falling, according to chicken little on the right wing.

everybody knows it takes socialism to create a first world economy.

Yes....just ask the people of Venezuela...

And no, the nordic countries are not socialist countries...

1929 already happened.

lousy management and socialism are not the same or fungible.

 

[TNHarley]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

Sounds like a lost cause in the first place. You would think liberty would be enough
Entitled, lazy americans

Yeah, my feeling is that our prosperity and standard of living have made us fat, lazy and entitled.

We don't appreciate what we have, so we're not afraid to lose it.
.

Well said, my nig!

 

[Mac1958]

We're going to start moving Left, and it won't stop unless and until the Right can offer a better counter-argument.

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

The Right will have to do better. It has to be more thoughtful and convincing. Right now, I don't see much progress there.
.

Sounds like a lost cause in the first place. You would think liberty would be enough
Entitled, lazy americans

Yeah, my feeling is that our prosperity and standard of living have made us fat, lazy and entitled.

We don't appreciate what we have, so we're not afraid to lose it.
.

Well said, my nig!

Almost spat out my beer

 

[sparky]

Hint: Just screaming FREEDOM and LIBERTY and SOCIALISM and MARXISM and COMMUNISM and HITLER and FREELOADER isn't going to be enough.

but it sells so well.....

There are plenty of people in between the two extremes.

so let's dispense with extreemes, extreemism & etreemists.....

Socialism doesn't cause the erosion of freedom. Concentrated capital does.

exponential disparity being another...extreeme....

Yeah, my feeling is that our prosperity and standard of living have made us fat, lazy and entitled.

Do i look fat in this post?

~S~

 

[Tehon]

...Man can't survive unless he reproduces his means of existence. Only labor can do that. Not Santa Claus.

PS. I am an avowed socialist.

Many say that labor is more important than capital but people work at both equally. One of the main things that distinguishes humans from animals is tool making --people work to create capital which in turn makes labor so much more productive.

Moving beyond soundbites/slogans/bumperstickers we need to decide what actual specific policies we need if we want to say our government was "socialist". AOC was asked if her idea of socialism was what we've seen in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. and she said she wanted what they have in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the UK.

So she likes policies in countries that abolish the minimum wage, privatize social security, and slash business taxes. If that's our definition of socialism then I'm a socialist too.

We don't want to say our government is socialist. If we can claim that, it is a sure sign that we got something wrong.

Socialism isn't a form of government, it is a system of production. It is a system of production that is not reliant on government. Or capital.

I feel the same about AOC as many on the right do. She's clueless.

 

[sparky]

I feel the same about AOC as many on the right do. She's clueless

probably why she fits in so well.......~S~

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Thomas Sowell isn't sure we'll make it. The left is refusing to educate. The left is hurrying to replace the educated like Thomas Sowell with the proudly ignorant like Alexandra Occasional Cortex.

Thomas Sowell warns U.S. may not resist siren song of socialism: ‘I wouldn’t bet on it’