Why The Left Loves Socialism

[Rustic]

The Left love socialism because socialism appeals to their emotions.

the left loves liberal socialism, because we believe in a better future; the right only loves national socialism for the private profit motive.

Again, you display your profound ignorance by making a totally irrational and illogical argument. I've never met another human being who didn't believe in a better future. What you are attempting to do here is humiliate and shame people into accepting your ideas.

In the OP, which I encourage newcomers in the thread to read, it is explained why some people embrace Socialism. It because you lack confidence in your ability to compete with others. This is evident in the nature of your replies. You want to shame people who achieve success. You want them to feel bad for being successful. In the movie I spoke of in the OP, the father shamed his daughter for wanting to raise lambs on her own. He told her that she must not love her family. He sought to extinguish her desire for self-accomplishment by making her feel ashamed of that. The reason was his own insecurities and lack of confidence in his ability to compete.

dears, socialism beat capitalism to the Moon and back, and capitalism is still, trying to compete.

I guess it could be said socialism is for people that can't make it in the real world…

dear, capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

Hoover, and his Hoovervilles, only deserved one term.

Yeah Socialism has been doing real good… Shit for brains

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[danielpalos]

The Left love socialism because they embrace the cultural Marxist practice of critical theory.

critical thinking is what distinguishes the left, from the right.

But you don't practice critical thinking. You practice critical theory. They are not the same thing.

i practice both; you simply need more practice.

 

[danielpalos]

the left loves liberal socialism, because we believe in a better future; the right only loves national socialism for the private profit motive.

Again, you display your profound ignorance by making a totally irrational and illogical argument. I've never met another human being who didn't believe in a better future. What you are attempting to do here is humiliate and shame people into accepting your ideas.

In the OP, which I encourage newcomers in the thread to read, it is explained why some people embrace Socialism. It because you lack confidence in your ability to compete with others. This is evident in the nature of your replies. You want to shame people who achieve success. You want them to feel bad for being successful. In the movie I spoke of in the OP, the father shamed his daughter for wanting to raise lambs on her own. He told her that she must not love her family. He sought to extinguish her desire for self-accomplishment by making her feel ashamed of that. The reason was his own insecurities and lack of confidence in his ability to compete.

dears, socialism beat capitalism to the Moon and back, and capitalism is still, trying to compete.

I guess it could be said socialism is for people that can't make it in the real world…

dear, capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

Hoover, and his Hoovervilles, only deserved one term.

Yeah Socialism has been doing real good… Shit for brains
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

just right wing, national socialism that keeps our useless and exorbitantly expensive, War on Drugs.

 

[ding]

The Left love socialism because they embrace the cultural Marxist practice of critical theory.

critical thinking is what distinguishes the left, from the right.

But you don't practice critical thinking. You practice critical theory. They are not the same thing.

i practice both; you simply need more practice.

You don't even know the difference between the two.

 

[AntonToo]

Are you retarded or something?

Here you go:
Blackwater Protection |
Bodyguards & Personal Protection - Entourage Executive Protection/Security

the military is specifically for foreign military intervention, not my personal bodyguard, so where can I buy some foreign military intervention legally?

You need quit this loser argument, you are just making yourself look more and more silly with every post. Blackwater services get contracted by US Government in Iraq and other volatile regions:

US jury convicts Blackwater guards in 2007 killing of Iraqi civilians

Contracted by the government, I asked if I can do it. If only the government can do it in a foreign country then it is not an economic service. Begging me to stop? lol, I guess that is one way to 'win'

Yes you can contract blackwater. Anything else dumb to say?

liars are as liars do... I said can I legally contract them to conduct my own personal policy in a foreign country? quit changing my context asshole

OF COURSE you can retard, if THEY, A PRIVATE COMPANY will agree to go take over a country for you. United States may have something to say about it though.


What the fuck is your point?

 

[NCC1701]

the military is specifically for foreign military intervention, not my personal bodyguard, so where can I buy some foreign military intervention legally?

You need quit this loser argument, you are just making yourself look more and more silly with every post. Blackwater services get contracted by US Government in Iraq and other volatile regions:

US jury convicts Blackwater guards in 2007 killing of Iraqi civilians

Contracted by the government, I asked if I can do it. If only the government can do it in a foreign country then it is not an economic service. Begging me to stop? lol, I guess that is one way to 'win'

Yes you can contract blackwater. Anything else dumb to say?

liars are as liars do... I said can I legally contract them to conduct my own personal policy in a foreign country? quit changing my context asshole

OF COURSE you can retard, if THEY, A PRIVATE COMPANY will agree to go take over a country for you. United States may have something to say about it though.


What the fuck is your point?

It isn't legal as I said, nor is it practical you absolute dumbfugger, so it isn't an economic service for me as you claim and that is my point. In fact the US military most of the time does not conduct policy according to my wishes and yet the govt forces me to pay at gunpoint, I know Stalinist thugs like you may call that a service just like any other, yeah I get that.

 

[NCC1701]

the left loves liberal socialism, because we believe in a better future.

the logically challenged left also believes in non sequiturs, I believe a better future means less of what you want

Our Space Race not good enough for you; why not pay SpaceX a tip, to ensure promptness.

the space race? lol, no it actually isn't good enough

ingrate. you should be more grateful for all of the spin off technologies we got out of it.

why not just invest in the spinoffs instead then? typical left wing garbage, justifying massive govt spending as some sort of economic miracle.

 

[Missourian]

---l

Not getting involved in the debate...but what a great handle...love it.

 

[Boss]

dears, socialism beat capitalism to the Moon and back, and capitalism is still, trying to compete.

Some morons here keep mentioning the moon shot. First of all, the number of private industries who contributed through government contracts for this endeavor was in the thousands. Millions upon millions of man hours of labor were essential and it was done by free market capitalists in a free market capitalist system, not a socialist one. Individuals working for their own economic enrichment and sense of self-achievement. The socialist system barely got into space and has yet to reach the moon.

Secondly, and more importantly, there was very little about the moon landings that directly contributed to the general social condition. It was a source of pride for society but in terms of cost, imagine how many hungry children could have been fed, homeless housed or sick people cared for with the billions of dollars that were spent. So in terms of direct societal benefit, there was very little reward. The real and tangible windfall came in terms of capitalist endeavor that followed our success. The thousands upon thousands of technologies and advances we made through research and development as a result of this project, which capitalists turned into bringing good things to our everyday lives in a meaningful way. It was the explosion of capitalist products and services brought forth by this project that ultimately benefited society and it was done through free market capitalism.

Dumb bunnies who do not comprehend what "Socialism" means, will try and lay claim to these achievements but they are clearly realized through free market endeavor and not Socialism.

 

[NCC1701]

dears, socialism beat capitalism to the Moon and back, and capitalism is still, trying to compete.

Some morons here keep mentioning the moon shot. First of all, the number of private industries who contributed through government contracts for this endeavor was in the thousands. Millions upon millions of man hours of labor were essential and it was done by free market capitalists in a free market capitalist system, not a socialist one. Individuals working for their own economic enrichment and sense of self-achievement. The socialist system barely got into space and has yet to reach the moon.

Secondly, and more importantly, there was very little about the moon landings that directly contributed to the general social condition. It was a source of pride for society but in terms of cost, imagine how many hungry children could have been fed, homeless housed or sick people cared for with the billions of dollars that were spent. So in terms of direct societal benefit, there was very little reward. The real and tangible windfall came in terms of capitalist endeavor that followed our success. The thousands upon thousands of technologies and advances we made through research and development as a result of this project, which capitalists turned into bringing good things to our everyday lives in a meaningful way. It was the explosion of capitalist products and services brought forth by this project that ultimately benefited society and it was done through free market capitalism.

Dumb bunnies who do not comprehend what "Socialism" means, will try and lay claim to these achievements but they are clearly realized through free market endeavor and not Socialism.

The moonshot was a political cold war stunt, any sane analysis of the economic payoff shows negative returns.

Even more astonishing, the landing pitted one type of economy versus another, and the more command and control centralized economy lost, yet here we have left wing idiots claiming the Apollo program proves their point. There is a reason the US government contracted out to Grumman to build the moon lander and didn't build it themselves, it is because socialism generally sucks at production.

That being said, I still like space exploration, it is a waste if you want economic growth but that is not what it should be for

 

[Boss]

The moonshot was a political cold war stunt, any sane analysis of the economic payoff shows negative returns.

I disagree with this. Like I said, the direct benefits to society were minimal. Indeed, it was "publicity" and a sense of national pride was promoted and realized, but that is of little social consequence for all practical purposes.

However.... It was the vast degree of knowledge and technology it unleashed which ultimately led to thousands and thousands of products we take for granted today, that made the endeavor well worth the investment from an economic standpoint.

So if you look at only the missions themselves and the economic benefit from the assorted government contracts, etc., then you can draw a conclusion the project was a bust economically. But we have to include the ramifications of all that knowledge and technology gained and how it was turned into products and services to benefit us all. And... this was purely the result of free market capitalism and free individual creative imagination for the purpose of self-fulfillment and economic prosperity.

 

[Tehon]

This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.

I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.

Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.

Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.

The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.

Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.

In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.

I learned to do Jedi mind tricks from watching Star Wars! If you didn't it must be because you are afraid to try!

Never saw The Green Promise but it sounds like a propaganda film written at the start of the cold war. Good stuff. Still has an audience after all these years, amazing.

 

[Boss]

I learned to do Jedi mind tricks from watching Star Wars! If you didn't it must be because you are afraid to try!

Never saw The Green Promise but it sounds like a propaganda film written at the start of the cold war. Good stuff. Still has an audience after all these years, amazing.

Not afraid, just never interested in fulfilling myself through fiction. I prefer to live in a non-fiction reality and focus my energy on that instead. But to each his own, I suppose.

The Green Promise was made in 1949 and focuses primarily on displaying the concept of the 4-H Club. It's public domain and the OP contains a link to the film on YouTube. The connections with Socialism is purely my own commentary. The film itself never mentions Socialism or Capitalism, nor does it attempt to compare them.

I have always been intrigued as to why so many people seem to embrace an ideology which clearly has such a dismal record of failure. For years, I assumed it was an ignorance of history. People just weren't aware these ideas have been tried for decades and they always result in dismal failure in spite of the glorious Utopian vision. But watching this film, I began to understand that maybe it's more about people's lack of confidence in their own ability to compete with others. After over 8 pages of replies to this thread, I am more convinced as ever that this has much to do with it.

 

[Johann]

You should really find out why they love sucking cock.

Fucking faggot lovers.

 

[NCC1701]

The moonshot was a political cold war stunt, any sane analysis of the economic payoff shows negative returns.

I disagree with this. Like I said, the direct benefits to society were minimal. Indeed, it was "publicity" and a sense of national pride was promoted and realized, but that is of little social consequence for all practical purposes.

However.... It was the vast degree of knowledge and technology it unleashed which ultimately led to thousands and thousands of products we take for granted today, that made the endeavor well worth the investment from an economic standpoint.

So if you look at only the missions themselves and the economic benefit from the assorted government contracts, etc., then you can draw a conclusion the project was a bust economically. But we have to include the ramifications of all that knowledge and technology gained and how it was turned into products and services to benefit us all. And... this was purely the result of free market capitalism and free individual creative imagination for the purpose of self-fulfillment and economic prosperity.

For the money put in, there was not a 'vast degree of knowledge and technology produced', there is no analysis that shows that outside of NASAs own propaganda. Direct effort of making economically valuable tech is done all the time by other agencies, but in fact they also do not do a good job, but they do it far cheaper than the moon shot.

 

[Boss]

For the money put in, there was not a 'vast degree of knowledge and technology produced', there is no analysis that shows that outside of NASAs own propaganda.

Well, you're wrong. That's all I can say. You can call it "NASA propaganda" if you like, but there are thousands of products you simply wouldn't have because they wouldn't exist without the research from our space program. The microchip being probably the most profound example. Most all wireless and cordless technology we use today. Digital imaging, MRIs, GPS, solar panels, memory foam, velcro, the list goes on and on.

 

[NCC1701]

For the money put in, there was not a 'vast degree of knowledge and technology produced', there is no analysis that shows that outside of NASAs own propaganda.

Well, you're wrong. That's all I can say. You can call it "NASA propaganda" if you like, but there are thousands of products you simply wouldn't have because they wouldn't exist without the research from our space program. The microchip being probably the most profound example. Most all wireless and cordless technology we use today. Digital imaging, MRIs, GPS, solar panels, memory foam, velcro, the list goes on and on.

well no, you can say that you are wrong, your hand waving is not correct nor is it an analysis. I'll add GPS to the list of your incorrect assertions, GPS was developed for the military, not NASA. Digital imaging? no, that wasn't nasa

NASA spin-off technologies - Wikipedia

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs
The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

• Cordless power tools (The first cordless power tool was unveiled by Black & Decker in 1961. It was used by NASA and a number of spinoff products came out of that.)
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), best known as a device for body scanning. (NASA contractor JPL developed digital signal processing, which does have applications in medical imaging.)
• Quartz clocks (The quartz clock dates back to 1927. However, in the late 1960s, NASA partnered with a company to make a quartz clock that was on the market for a few years.)
• Smoke detectors (NASA’s connection to the modern smoke detector is that it made one with adjustable sensitivity as part of the Skylab project.)
• Tang juice powder (Tang was developed by General Foods in 1957, and it has been for sale since 1959. It was used in the first orbit missions, which gave awareness to it.)
• Teflon (Invented by a DuPont scientist in 1941 and used on frying pans from the 1950s.[4] It has been applied by NASA to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners.)
• Velcro (A Swiss invention from the 1940s. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations.)
• Microchip (The first microchips were developed more than ten years before the first moon landing.)[7]

 

[Seawytch]

The moonshot was a political cold war stunt, any sane analysis of the economic payoff shows negative returns.

I disagree with this. Like I said, the direct benefits to society were minimal. Indeed, it was "publicity" and a sense of national pride was promoted and realized, but that is of little social consequence for all practical purposes.

However.... It was the vast degree of knowledge and technology it unleashed which ultimately led to thousands and thousands of products we take for granted today, that made the endeavor well worth the investment from an economic standpoint.

So if you look at only the missions themselves and the economic benefit from the assorted government contracts, etc., then you can draw a conclusion the project was a bust economically. But we have to include the ramifications of all that knowledge and technology gained and how it was turned into products and services to benefit us all. And... this was purely the result of free market capitalism and free individual creative imagination for the purpose of self-fulfillment and economic prosperity.

For the money put in, there was not a 'vast degree of knowledge and technology produced', there is no analysis that shows that outside of NASAs own propaganda. Direct effort of making economically valuable tech is done all the time by other agencies, but in fact they also do not do a good job, but they do it far cheaper than the moon shot.

Just gotta say that I love your screen name.

Live long and prosper...

 

[Boss]

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs

The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

 

[Tehon]

Not afraid, just never interested in fulfilling myself through fiction. I prefer to live in a non-fiction reality and focus my energy on that instead. But to each his own, I suppose.

And yet, here you are claiming that a fictional movie has shown you the light.

I think what you don't want to admit is that capitalism is not a perfect economic system. The inherent inequities in the capitalist system is what keeps Socialism alive.