CDZ The Siren Song of Socialism

[mamooth]

Republicans tried running on "You're a socialist!" in 2018, along with Pelosi Derangement Syndrome.

How'd that work out for them? Not so good?

Interesting, then, that conservatives have concluded they need to do what failed with even more vigor. Isn't there some saying in that regard about the definition of insanity?

But then, it's not like conservatives can run on issues. Across the board, majorities support the Democratic positions. That's why Republicans work so hard to talk about anything except policy.

 

[sparky]

The left is refusing to educate

Most partians are. Of the many 'socialism' threads here , the one consitency is the misunderstanding of what socialism is/is not

They all ardently define it according to their narrative

~S~

 

[Leo123]

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

But Socialism has to concentrate capital so government entities can redistribute capital's earned revenue. Although it SOUNDS great for everyone to have equal outcome, the Devil's in the details.

 

[Tehon]

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

But Socialism has to concentrate capital so government entities can redistribute capital's earned revenue. Although it SOUNDS great for everyone to have equal outcome, the Devil's in the details.

Right, except that is a common misconception of what Socialism is.

Socialism, properly understood, is a system of production that does not use capital. It is a system of production driven exclusively by the social power of labor.

No capital, no concentrated power.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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

But Socialism has to concentrate capital so government entities can redistribute capital's earned revenue. Although it SOUNDS great for everyone to have equal outcome, the Devil's in the details.

Right, except that is a common misconception of what Socialism is.

Socialism, properly understood, is a system of production that does not use capital. It is a system of production driven exclusively by the social power of labor.
Wrong.

It simply concentrates power in the hands of the state which enslaves people and forces their labor.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

Partly correct.

Socialism erodes no freedom it instead overtly and swiftly destroys freedom by design.

Capital enhances and spreads freedom even if concentrated which harms no one and takes no freedom.

You did get one thing right in that man needs labor to survive which is why socialism always fails and is evil.

Socialism steals mans labor which is slavery resulting in the murder of man.

 

[Soupnazi630]

...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.

Wrong.

Socialism is absolutely and exclusively a form of government rooted in force and tyranny.

It does not exist in any other form. Socialism is absolutely dependent on massive government force.

 

[Leo123]

Right, except that is a common misconception of what Socialism is.

Socialism, properly understood, is a system of production that does not use capital. It is a system of production driven exclusively by the social power of labor.

No capital, no concentrated power.

Well...the 'social power of labor' is capital and, as such, must be re-distributed by a central governing authority not connected to the reality of market competition. Socialism can only be 'properly understood' if it is considered exactly what it is.....a fantasy.

 

[Votto]

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

Socialism, the opioid of secular humanists.

 

[jwoodie]

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

Socialism is a very successful method of gaining political power. But it always turns out badly.

 

[Tehon]

Capital enhances and spreads freedom even if concentrated which harms no one and takes no freedom.

Really?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Capital enhances and spreads freedom even if concentrated which harms no one and takes no freedom.

Really?

Yes really.

Which your video does not even touch

 

[expat_panama]

...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...

Most people would say that socialism cannot exist without government because the most used definition is:

so·cial·ism

/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun​

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.​

...Or capital....

My experience is that those who call themselves socialists seem to use a private definition of "capital". The rest of consider "capital" one of the necessary requirements for production. For example, a worker can't even dig a ditch w/o first getting his hands on a shovel.

 

[pop102377]

Socialism is good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tehon]

...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...

Most people would say that socialism cannot exist without government because the most used definition is:

so·cial·ism

/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun​

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.​

...Or capital....

My experience is that those who call themselves socialists seem to use a private definition of "capital". The rest of consider "capital" one of the necessary requirements for production. For example, a worker can't even dig a ditch w/o first getting his hands on a shovel.

Most people would say that capitalism cannot exist without government.

The shovel is only capital when it is privately owned.

In a socialist system, the shovel would not be privately owned. It would nevertheless be made available to the laborer who needs to dig the ditch.

 

[Soupnazi630]

...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...

Most people would say that socialism cannot exist without government because the most used definition is:

so·cial·ism

/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun​

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.​

...Or capital....

My experience is that those who call themselves socialists seem to use a private definition of "capital". The rest of consider "capital" one of the necessary requirements for production. For example, a worker can't even dig a ditch w/o first getting his hands on a shovel.

Most people would say that capitalism cannot exist without government.

The shovel is only capital when it is privately owned.

In a socialist system, the shovel would not be privately owned. It would nevertheless be made available to the laborer who needs to dig the ditch.

In a socialist system the laborer would be forced to dig the ditch and never permitted to own a shovel which he can use to dig a ditch for his own wages.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Socialism is good.View attachment 249054


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Socialism is horrific

It is never simply a government service

 

[Tehon]

...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...

Most people would say that socialism cannot exist without government because the most used definition is:

so·cial·ism

/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun​

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.​

...Or capital....

My experience is that those who call themselves socialists seem to use a private definition of "capital". The rest of consider "capital" one of the necessary requirements for production. For example, a worker can't even dig a ditch w/o first getting his hands on a shovel.

Most people would say that capitalism cannot exist without government.

The shovel is only capital when it is privately owned.

In a socialist system, the shovel would not be privately owned. It would nevertheless be made available to the laborer who needs to dig the ditch.

In a socialist system the laborer would be forced to dig the ditch and never permitted to own a shovel which he can use to dig a ditch for his own wages.

In a socialist system the laborer wouldn't be using a shovel to dig a ditch. He would be using a machine. And he wouldn't be doing it to enrich his boss, he would be doing it to enrich society. From which he would receive full compensation, not a wage.

 

[Soupnazi630]

...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...

Most people would say that socialism cannot exist without government because the most used definition is:

so·cial·ism

/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun​

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.​

...Or capital....

My experience is that those who call themselves socialists seem to use a private definition of "capital". The rest of consider "capital" one of the necessary requirements for production. For example, a worker can't even dig a ditch w/o first getting his hands on a shovel.

Most people would say that capitalism cannot exist without government.

The shovel is only capital when it is privately owned.

In a socialist system, the shovel would not be privately owned. It would nevertheless be made available to the laborer who needs to dig the ditch.

In a socialist system the laborer would be forced to dig the ditch and never permitted to own a shovel which he can use to dig a ditch for his own wages.

In a socialist system the laborer wouldn't be using a shovel to dig a ditch. He would be using a machine. And he wouldn't be doing it to enrich his boss, he would be doing it to enrich society. From which he would receive full compensation, not a wage.

In a socialist system there would be no such machines. or gas to fuel them, or mechanics to repair them.

All machines and shovels and laborers are owned by the state

The only compensation would be what the socialist state dictates is deserved and the worker would have no right to negotiate his wage with his boss.

These are facts you willfully ignore and are why socialism is an abominable failure EVERYTIME

 

[expat_panama]

...Most people would say that capitalism cannot exist without government...

The word "capitalism" can mean a lot of different things, but nobody here says capital is better or more important than labor. Posters on this thread either say we need both or they like labor more than capital. That would mean we may have "laborists" here and no "capitalists".

Most of us like things like production, consumption, and markets --and humans create governments to maintain order so they can produce, consume, and market things.

...The shovel is only capital when it is privately owned...

Sounds like a nonstandard definition of capital here, as most folks would point out that the ditch can only be produced, consumed, and marketed by first joining a laborer to a shovel --and it doesn't matter who owns the shovel or who hires the laborer.

...In a socialist system, the shovel would not be privately owned. It would nevertheless be made available to the laborer who needs to dig the ditch.

Usually we hear socialists say that the shovel is to be handed out by the "community" --AKA the state. Is that your take?