Socialism

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
long read

SNIP:

[Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow (1979), Lecture 2 (1958)]



I am here in Buenos Aires as a guest of the Centro de Difusión Economía Libre.[1] What is economía libre? What does this system of economic freedom mean? The answer is simple: it is the market economy; it is the system in which the cooperation of individuals in the social division of labor is achieved by the market. This market is not a place; it is a process, it is the way in which, by selling and buying, by producing and consuming, the individuals contribute to the total workings of society.

In dealing with this system of economic organization — the market economy — we employ the term "economic freedom." Very often, people misunderstand what it means, believing that economic freedom is something quite apart from other freedoms, and that these other freedoms — which they hold to be more important — can be preserved even in the absence of economic freedom. The meaning of economic freedom is this: that the individual is in a position to choose the way in which he wants to integrate himself into the totality of society. The individual is able to choose his career; he is free to do what he wants to do.

This is of course not meant in any sense which so many people attach to the word freedom today; it is meant rather in the sense that, through economic freedom, man is freed from natural conditions. In nature, there is nothing that can be termed freedom; there is only the regularity of the laws of nature, which man must obey if he wants to attain something.

In using the term freedom as applied to human beings, we think only of freedom within society. Yet, today, social freedoms are considered by many people to be independent of one another. Those who call themselves "liberals" today are asking for policies which are precisely the opposite of those policies which the liberals of the 19th century advocated in their liberal programs. The so-called liberals of today have the very popular idea that freedom of speech, of thought of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from imprisonment without trial — that all these freedoms can be preserved in the absence of what is called economic freedom. They do not realize that, in a system where there is no market, where the government directs everything, all those other freedoms are illusory, even if they are made into laws and written up in constitutions.

Let us take one freedom, the freedom of the press. If the government owns all the printing presses, it will determine what is to be printed and what is not to be printed. And if the government owns all the printing presses and determines what shall or shall not be printed, then the possibility of printing any kind of opposing arguments against the ideas of the government becomes practically nonexistent. Freedom of the press disappears. And it is the same with all the other freedoms.

In a market economy, the individual has the freedom to choose whatever career he wishes to pursue, to choose his own way of integrating himself into society. But in a socialist system, that is not so: his career is decided by decree of the government. The government can order people whom it dislikes, whom it does not want to live in certain regions, to move into other regions and to other places. And the government is always in a position to justify and to explain such procedure by declaring that the governmental plan requires the presence of this eminent citizen 5,000 miles away from the place in which he could be disagreeable to those in power.

ALL of it here
Socialism - Ludwig von Mises - Mises Daily
 
There are no real Socialist systems just like there are no real Capitalist systems. Everything takes a cue from one school of thought, then it gets corrupted by (duh, money) and you end up with Crony Capitalism or Crony Socialism, or a Fascist state, like North Korea.

What no one on the left ever seems to get through their midget mullets, is that Greed and Envy are different sides of the same coin. Both are inherent in human nature, but while one true system (Capitalism) embraces that reality and fosters growth by merit and desire, all others pretend you can have Envy, if you cripple Greed. And the big thing the leftists fail to account for, is that even that is a total lie, because what the simple-minded among us do not seem to get, is that you can have Greed in private hands, or Greed in the hands of a Central Government, but the Greed will never cease to exist. All one does by embracing Socialism is freely hand over their lives to another person or entity, and like a child, assume that they will be taken care of. As a plus, the Socialist likes the idea of punishing the successful, and that is more often than not the driving factor in their embrace of such rank stupidity.

Don't even bother trying to argue this if you are a leftist fool. Everything I said is as true as the sky is blue.
 
Last edited:
My daughter is a member of the Denver Socialist Organization, and this brings me a lot of sorrow to say the least. If a reasonable person does their research they will find that though the socialist idea seems to sound good, but has never worked in the past. A big part of the movement is about the inequality of the classes but when you put the socialist experiment into a working model you will always find that the State is ALWAYS unequal and above the working class. As long as Greed and power are in the makeup of the human being you will have an elite class.

There has never been in the history of this world a better government than one that is based on the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the very reason that there have been many to go out of their way to subvert it, is due to it's success. Constitution and God are the only things a government needs.
 
Do any of you folks really know what is "socialism", or is it a term by which you identify anything you don't like?
 
Do any of you folks really know what is "socialism", or is it a term by which you identify anything you don't like?

I know what it is, but if you would like the wiki definition you can find it here:

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you ever noticed that those that would have Socialism always seem to try and bring it about by using secret, covert, behind the curtain tactics? Any form of it, if coming about through secrecy, deceit, and through hidden political agenda can never stand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C__Jlfj-EYI&feature=c4-overview&list=UUIMhTRRZAu8VXpbCwhuOHzA]Fallen - YouTube[/ame]
 
Why Socialism Is on the Rise

January 8, 2014 by Ben Shapiro

de-blasio-450x253.jpg


It took capitalism half a century to come back from the Great Depression. It’s taken socialism half that time to come back from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In New York City, avowed socialist Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared that his goal is to take “dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities” — the gap between rich and poor. In Seattle, newly elected socialist city Councilmember Kshama Sawant addressed supporters, explaining, “I wear the badge of socialist with honor.” To great acclaim from the left, columnist Jesse Myerson of Rolling Stone put out a column telling millennials that they ought to fight for government-guaranteed employment, a universal basic income, collectivization of private property, nationalization of private assets and public banks.

The newly flowering buds of Marxism no longer reside on the fringes. Not when the president of the United States has declared fighting income inequality his chief task as commander in chief. Not when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said that America faces “no greater challenge” than income disparity. Not when MSNBC, The New York Times and the amalgamated pro-Obama media outlets have all declared their mission for 2014 a campaign against rich people.

...

The failure to make a moral case for capitalism has doomed capitalism to the status of a perennial backup plan. When people are desperate or wealthy, they turn to socialism; only when they have no other alternative do they embrace the free market. After all, lies about guaranteed security are far more seductive than lectures about personal responsibility.

So what is the moral case for capitalism? It lies in recognition that socialism isn’t a great idea gone wrong — it’s an evil philosophy in action. It isn’t driven by altruism; it’s driven by greed and jealousy. Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don’t give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution. Socialism violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness. Discussions of income inequality, after all, aren’t about prosperity but about petty spite. Why should you care how much money I make, so long as you are happy?

Conservatives talk results when discussing the shortcomings of socialism. They’re right: Socialism is ineffective, destructive and stunting to the human spirit. But they’re wrong to abandon the field of morality when discussing the contrast between freedom and control. And it’s this abandonment — this perverse laziness — that has led to socialism’s comeback, even though within living memory, we have seen continental economies collapse and millions slaughtered in the name of this false god.

Why Socialism Is on the Rise | FrontPage Magazine
 
Depending on definition, most economic systems, including the United States, are a mixture of socialism and capitalism and have been so for some time. Perhaps the reason so few Americans are able to define socialism is because most high schools do not require, nor teach comparative economic systems. To teach that subject would invite all kinds of local problems and why should schools, dependent on public support. add the charge of teaching communism to their image?
Because there is little teaching of economics, socialism can be defined as anything one wants, from the first step to communism to a social disease. I would suspect a poll taken of Americans 75% would say indeed it is the first step to communism.
Or perhaps the sign carried by a Tea Party demonstrator, "Keep Government out of my Medicare" says it better.
 
"They do not realize that, in a system where there is no market, where the government directs everything"

Shouldn't this be under history? Where is this happening in the world today? Belarus? North Korea? Gimme a break :rolleyes:
 

Forum List

Back
Top