Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

[AZrailwhale]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

You sure it wasn't the free market, you ignorant fuck, that bailed our country out in the 30s?

Want to know how many start up companies began in the 30s?

No?

Thought not.

Category:Products introduced in the 1930s - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You lose again

Even with all of FDR's command economics?

~~~~~~
FDR's attempts during his first two administrations were failures. The advent of World War II in 1939 pulled America out of the "Great Depression".

FDR’s New Deal Exacerbated the Great Depression

In an interview with an economic organization from India last month, I discussed many of the economic issues associated with coronavirus (fiscal fallout, excess regulation, subsidized unemployment,…

danieljmitchell.wordpress.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Why World War II, Not the New Deal, Ended the Great Depression

On November 27th, I wrote an article on how FDR’s long-standing racism accounted for the detention of Japanese-Americans rather than security concerns

www.counterpunch.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected

fee.org

No it didn't. It just drafted all the unemployed into the army.

No, the Great Depression ended with the expansion of the defense industry first fed by European orders, then Lend Lease and finally with things like the two ocean navy and the concept of the arsenal of democracy. The military never absorbed more than a small percentage of Americans (16,000,000 out of 135,000,000) Industry and food production absorbed the rest.

 

[Kilroy2]

The main problem is that we don’t have good capitalism.

What is “good capitalism”? We’ve evolved by no longer using slaves as Africa and many other nations still engage in. We have evolved and now have standards and regulations unlike China and other nations that pay children $0.20 per pair to manufacture Nike sneakers.

well the US had sweatshops in the past. So give China and these other new free enterprise countries time to evolve further

Still when Ivanka uses Chinese labor to maker her trademarks products it seems that it is not a question of evolution. Its a question of greed and what can you get away with.

That is bullshit. Let China evolve? Are you kidding? What will make them stop child and slave labor? What will make them actually adhere to environmental standards vs. just signing accords? Oh, you want to hold Ivanka Trump accountable for using China to manufacture her products. That falls short when you stay silent as Lebron James and Colin Kapernick cash their millions from Nike while adding insult to injury crying about oppression on the backs of poor children making Nike products.

The difference between Ivanka and James or Kapernick is that Ivanka owns the company. Spokesmen do not own the companies. They are just paid spokesmen. So it is not falling short. Yet that is what you do when you try to compare the two. Deny that the owner has no culpability.

Also you also refer to it as child labor while I was talking about sweatshops. There is a difference as sweatshop refer to low wages paid and child labor is more using under aged children. Obvious Nike has been accused of it and if you so believe you should not buy their product.

It is a moral issues for a spokesperson to promote a product but then they would have to believe it with no actual first hand knowledge. It is a decision to refuse the money on grounds of not approving of their methods instead of actually accusing the owner or stock purchasers who participate.

Both blacks, whites, spanish players are paid by Nike

Rory Mcllory got 20 - 25 million

Mike Trout is said to be in the 5 million range

are they oppressed no but the certainly do not say no

 

[LeftofLeft]

The main problem is that we don’t have good capitalism.

What is “good capitalism”? We’ve evolved by no longer using slaves as Africa and many other nations still engage in. We have evolved and now have standards and regulations unlike China and other nations that pay children $0.20 per pair to manufacture Nike sneakers.

well the US had sweatshops in the past. So give China and these other new free enterprise countries time to evolve further

Still when Ivanka uses Chinese labor to maker her trademarks products it seems that it is not a question of evolution. Its a question of greed and what can you get away with.

That is bullshit. Let China evolve? Are you kidding? What will make them stop child and slave labor? What will make them actually adhere to environmental standards vs. just signing accords? Oh, you want to hold Ivanka Trump accountable for using China to manufacture her products. That falls short when you stay silent as Lebron James and Colin Kapernick cash their millions from Nike while adding insult to injury crying about oppression on the backs of poor children making Nike products.

The difference between Ivanka and James or Kapernick is that Ivanka owns the company. Spokesmen do not own the companies. They are just paid spokesmen. So it is not falling short. Yet that is what you do when you try to compare the two. Deny that the owner has no culpability.

Also you also refer to it as child labor while I was talking about sweatshops. There is a difference as sweatshop refer to low wages paid and child labor is more using under aged children. Obvious Nike has been accused of it and if you so believe you should not buy their product.

It is a moral issues for a spokesperson to promote a product but then they would have to believe it with no actual first hand knowledge. It is a decision to refuse the money on grounds of not approving of their methods instead of actually accusing the owner or stock purchasers who participate.

Both blacks, whites, spanish players are paid by Nike

Rory Mcllory got 20 - 25 million

Mike Trout is said to be in the 5 million range

are they oppressed no but the certainly do not say no

You are trying to shift the goal posts and make this a Black and White issue. You mention Ivanka Trump, Rory MclRoy, and Mike Trout as ones who are making money out of China similar to Lebron and Kapernick. The difference is the latter are running around talking about oppression in the US while staying silent on oppression in China. You can split hairs and shift goal posts all you want but that is the core issue: being inconsistent about oppression by giving China a pass. I can’t see how anyone can take them serious on the topic of oppression given their inconsistency.

 

[toobfreak]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.

Always interesting how the socialists on this board always funny anything which tells the truth about them.

What could be more attractive than the idea that you can live and prosper without working by living off the hard work and accomplishments of others?

 

[j-mac]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

Funny. Who delivers your mail?

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

~~~~~~
Riiight.... The Daily Kos
Only if you omit the actions of the Marxist terrorists destroying Portland, Seattle, Ferguson, Kenosha, Rochester Chicago and New York..... Not to mention force businesses to raise their
Then there's:

10 Huge Reasons Why Socialism Will Hurt You and Your Family [Video]

Socialism is romanticized as a solution to economic and social ills. Four out of 10 Americans today prefer socialism to capitalism. But if they only knew...

www.craighuey.com

Meanwhile Socialist Communism took Venezuela from a rich productive country to a country that cannot feed itself. Indeed, that is what you really are looking forward to.

Venezuela: How a rich country collapsed

Venezuela is spiraling into chaos as President Nicolas Maduro seeks to win a referendum this week to rewrite the constitution.

money.cnn.com

US sanctions did that. And, it is still around. There are no true AnCaps on earth in modern times since the fall of Mogadishu. And, Cuba is even still around while more Capitalist, South Africa fell after only about three years of sanctions. Go ahead, right wingers. tell us how socialism does not work.

If Cuba is so successful, Why not live there? I mean, it’s only 90 miles off our coast. I’m sure their government would welcome the propaganda coup in having an American defect.

Truth is people flock here, not to these Socialist nightmares.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Urban areas are in shambles because they have no opportunity because under socialism there’s no way to work your way up you have to be giving it by a bureaucracy which never comes

Lousy management? We can use new cities in more optimal locations.

What would you consider “more optimal locations”? Cities are typically located at transportation nexus’.

For some cities, it could be in locations that are not being flooded due to rising water levels. And, infrastructure is supposed to be a left wing priority; building new transportation hubs can create jobs and utilize the latest technologies.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Urban areas are in shambles because they have no opportunity because under socialism there’s no way to work your way up you have to be giving it by a bureaucracy which never comes

Lousy management? We can use new cities in more optimal locations.

No one wants to move to Kansas

The Chinese communists can do it; why can't capitalism?

The Chinese have gutted their economy building those empty cities.

Only by not filling them with refugees from the floods.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.

Always interesting how the socialists on this board always funny anything which tells the truth about them.

What could be more attractive than the idea that you can live and prosper without working by living off the hard work and accomplishments of others?

The yellow journalism from the Industrial Revolution in the US tell a different story; especially in turn of the century, Iron Mill towns.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

Funny. Who delivers your mail?

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

~~~~~~
Riiight.... The Daily Kos
Only if you omit the actions of the Marxist terrorists destroying Portland, Seattle, Ferguson, Kenosha, Rochester Chicago and New York..... Not to mention force businesses to raise their
Then there's:

10 Huge Reasons Why Socialism Will Hurt You and Your Family [Video]

Socialism is romanticized as a solution to economic and social ills. Four out of 10 Americans today prefer socialism to capitalism. But if they only knew...

www.craighuey.com

Meanwhile Socialist Communism took Venezuela from a rich productive country to a country that cannot feed itself. Indeed, that is what you really are looking forward to.

Venezuela: How a rich country collapsed

Venezuela is spiraling into chaos as President Nicolas Maduro seeks to win a referendum this week to rewrite the constitution.

money.cnn.com

US sanctions did that. And, it is still around. There are no true AnCaps on earth in modern times since the fall of Mogadishu. And, Cuba is even still around while more Capitalist, South Africa fell after only about three years of sanctions. Go ahead, right wingers. tell us how socialism does not work.

If Cuba is so successful, Why not live there? I mean, it’s only 90 miles off our coast. I’m sure their government would welcome the propaganda coup in having an American defect.

Truth is people flock here, not to these Socialist nightmares.

You miss the point like usual, right winger. Cuba and Venezuela are still functioning while the more Capitalist economy of South Africa fell after only about three years.

And, why don't right wingers move to Germany or Europe if they have problems dealing with colored folk in the New World.

 

[j-mac]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

Funny. Who delivers your mail?

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

~~~~~~
Riiight.... The Daily Kos
Only if you omit the actions of the Marxist terrorists destroying Portland, Seattle, Ferguson, Kenosha, Rochester Chicago and New York..... Not to mention force businesses to raise their
Then there's:

10 Huge Reasons Why Socialism Will Hurt You and Your Family [Video]

Socialism is romanticized as a solution to economic and social ills. Four out of 10 Americans today prefer socialism to capitalism. But if they only knew...

www.craighuey.com

Meanwhile Socialist Communism took Venezuela from a rich productive country to a country that cannot feed itself. Indeed, that is what you really are looking forward to.

Venezuela: How a rich country collapsed

Venezuela is spiraling into chaos as President Nicolas Maduro seeks to win a referendum this week to rewrite the constitution.

money.cnn.com

US sanctions did that. And, it is still around. There are no true AnCaps on earth in modern times since the fall of Mogadishu. And, Cuba is even still around while more Capitalist, South Africa fell after only about three years of sanctions. Go ahead, right wingers. tell us how socialism does not work.

If Cuba is so successful, Why not live there? I mean, it’s only 90 miles off our coast. I’m sure their government would welcome the propaganda coup in having an American defect.

Truth is people flock here, not to these Socialist nightmares.

You miss the point like usual, right winger. Cuba and Venezuela are still functioning while the more Capitalist economy of South Africa fell after only about three years.

And, why don't right wingers move to Germany or Europe if they have problems dealing with colored folk in the New World.

Thats assholes like you saying we have problems dealing with AA's. Oh and BTW, "colored people"?

Such a racist term.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

Funny. Who delivers your mail?

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

~~~~~~
Riiight.... The Daily Kos
Only if you omit the actions of the Marxist terrorists destroying Portland, Seattle, Ferguson, Kenosha, Rochester Chicago and New York..... Not to mention force businesses to raise their
Then there's:

10 Huge Reasons Why Socialism Will Hurt You and Your Family [Video]

Socialism is romanticized as a solution to economic and social ills. Four out of 10 Americans today prefer socialism to capitalism. But if they only knew...

www.craighuey.com

Meanwhile Socialist Communism took Venezuela from a rich productive country to a country that cannot feed itself. Indeed, that is what you really are looking forward to.

Venezuela: How a rich country collapsed

Venezuela is spiraling into chaos as President Nicolas Maduro seeks to win a referendum this week to rewrite the constitution.

money.cnn.com

US sanctions did that. And, it is still around. There are no true AnCaps on earth in modern times since the fall of Mogadishu. And, Cuba is even still around while more Capitalist, South Africa fell after only about three years of sanctions. Go ahead, right wingers. tell us how socialism does not work.

If Cuba is so successful, Why not live there? I mean, it’s only 90 miles off our coast. I’m sure their government would welcome the propaganda coup in having an American defect.

Truth is people flock here, not to these Socialist nightmares.

You miss the point like usual, right winger. Cuba and Venezuela are still functioning while the more Capitalist economy of South Africa fell after only about three years.

And, why don't right wingers move to Germany or Europe if they have problems dealing with colored folk in the New World.

Thats assholes like you saying we have problems dealing with AA's. Oh and BTW, "colored people"?

Such a racist term.

lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies, unlike right wingers who want to be Right and taken Rightly seriously merely because they are on the right wing.

 

[Kilroy2]

The main problem is that we don’t have good capitalism.

What is “good capitalism”? We’ve evolved by no longer using slaves as Africa and many other nations still engage in. We have evolved and now have standards and regulations unlike China and other nations that pay children $0.20 per pair to manufacture Nike sneakers.

well the US had sweatshops in the past. So give China and these other new free enterprise countries time to evolve further

Still when Ivanka uses Chinese labor to maker her trademarks products it seems that it is not a question of evolution. Its a question of greed and what can you get away with.

That is bullshit. Let China evolve? Are you kidding? What will make them stop child and slave labor? What will make them actually adhere to environmental standards vs. just signing accords? Oh, you want to hold Ivanka Trump accountable for using China to manufacture her products. That falls short when you stay silent as Lebron James and Colin Kapernick cash their millions from Nike while adding insult to injury crying about oppression on the backs of poor children making Nike products.

The difference between Ivanka and James or Kapernick is that Ivanka owns the company. Spokesmen do not own the companies. They are just paid spokesmen. So it is not falling short. Yet that is what you do when you try to compare the two. Deny that the owner has no culpability.

Also you also refer to it as child labor while I was talking about sweatshops. There is a difference as sweatshop refer to low wages paid and child labor is more using under aged children. Obvious Nike has been accused of it and if you so believe you should not buy their product.

It is a moral issues for a spokesperson to promote a product but then they would have to believe it with no actual first hand knowledge. It is a decision to refuse the money on grounds of not approving of their methods instead of actually accusing the owner or stock purchasers who participate.

Both blacks, whites, spanish players are paid by Nike

Rory Mcllory got 20 - 25 million

Mike Trout is said to be in the 5 million range

are they oppressed no but the certainly do not say no

You are trying to shift the goal posts and make this a Black and White issue. You mention Ivanka Trump, Rory MclRoy, and Mike Trout as ones who are making money out of China similar to Lebron and Kapernick. The difference is the latter are running around talking about oppression in the US while staying silent on oppression in China. You can split hairs and shift goal posts all you want but that is the core issue: being inconsistent about oppression by giving China a pass. I can’t see how anyone can take them serious on the topic of oppression given their inconsistency.

I do believe your brought up lebron and Kapernick.

You say why don't they talk about oppression in China

well show me where Ivanka or or Rory have? Plus you seem to ignoring the fact that Ivanka is a owner , when you are concern with such oppression is somewhat supporting oppression given the fact that she is the daughter of Trump. Yet have you called her out.

I keeping the field level

 

[LeftofLeft]

The main problem is that we don’t have good capitalism.

What is “good capitalism”? We’ve evolved by no longer using slaves as Africa and many other nations still engage in. We have evolved and now have standards and regulations unlike China and other nations that pay children $0.20 per pair to manufacture Nike sneakers.

well the US had sweatshops in the past. So give China and these other new free enterprise countries time to evolve further

Still when Ivanka uses Chinese labor to maker her trademarks products it seems that it is not a question of evolution. Its a question of greed and what can you get away with.

That is bullshit. Let China evolve? Are you kidding? What will make them stop child and slave labor? What will make them actually adhere to environmental standards vs. just signing accords? Oh, you want to hold Ivanka Trump accountable for using China to manufacture her products. That falls short when you stay silent as Lebron James and Colin Kapernick cash their millions from Nike while adding insult to injury crying about oppression on the backs of poor children making Nike products.

The difference between Ivanka and James or Kapernick is that Ivanka owns the company. Spokesmen do not own the companies. They are just paid spokesmen. So it is not falling short. Yet that is what you do when you try to compare the two. Deny that the owner has no culpability.

Also you also refer to it as child labor while I was talking about sweatshops. There is a difference as sweatshop refer to low wages paid and child labor is more using under aged children. Obvious Nike has been accused of it and if you so believe you should not buy their product.

It is a moral issues for a spokesperson to promote a product but then they would have to believe it with no actual first hand knowledge. It is a decision to refuse the money on grounds of not approving of their methods instead of actually accusing the owner or stock purchasers who participate.

Both blacks, whites, spanish players are paid by Nike

Rory Mcllory got 20 - 25 million

Mike Trout is said to be in the 5 million range

are they oppressed no but the certainly do not say no

You are trying to shift the goal posts and make this a Black and White issue. You mention Ivanka Trump, Rory MclRoy, and Mike Trout as ones who are making money out of China similar to Lebron and Kapernick. The difference is the latter are running around talking about oppression in the US while staying silent on oppression in China. You can split hairs and shift goal posts all you want but that is the core issue: being inconsistent about oppression by giving China a pass. I can’t see how anyone can take them serious on the topic of oppression given their inconsistency.

I do believe your brought up lebron and Kapernick.

You say why don't they talk about oppression in China

well show me where Ivanka or or Rory have? Plus you seem to ignoring the fact that Ivanka is a owner , when you are concern with such oppression is somewhat supporting oppression given the fact that she is the daughter of Trump. Yet have you called her out.

I keeping the field level

Ivanka and Rory are not profiting off oppressive labor in China AND calling US oppressive and profiting off that as well. That’s pure hypocrisy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I know you are trying to make a rtwingnutjob point here but you are actually correct. Socialism can't work because it's not a government model. It's an Economic Model like Capitalism is. Anytime a country tries to pass itself off as a Socialist Government if you look a bit deeper you will actually see a more sinister Government Model like Dictatorship, Oliarchy or Fascism. The only exception to the fascism rule was Spain under Franco who was closer to a Military Dictator than a Fascist. Unlike the other two Fascists of his day, he was the only one that didn't have designs of world domination. ALL successful Governments are formed under the design of a Federal Republic and use a mix of Social and Capitalism to keep things together.

Hate to break it to you but anyone claiming to be a Marxist, Communist or Socialist is just lying. And anyone claiming that they know someone that is lying just as much.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time and just typed "but, this time...we'll do it the right way..."

 

[Andylusion]

I know you are trying to make a rtwingnutjob point here but you are actually correct. Socialism can't work because it's not a government model. It's an Economic Model like Capitalism is. Anytime a country tries to pass itself off as a Socialist Government if you look a bit deeper you will actually see a more sinister Government Model like Dictatorship, Oliarchy or Fascism. The only exception to the fascism rule was Spain under Franco who was closer to a Military Dictator than a Fascist. Unlike the other two Fascists of his day, he was the only one that didn't have designs of world domination. ALL successful Governments are formed under the design of a Federal Republic and use a mix of Social and Capitalism to keep things together.

Hate to break it to you but anyone claiming to be a Marxist, Communist or Socialist is just lying. And anyone claiming that they know someone that is lying just as much.

But see that is a dumb point, because without government... then it is not even an economic model, or any model.

Without government, socialism can't exist. By definition, you can't have common ownership without something to administrate that common ownership.

Take government out of socialism and what do you have? Nothing. Because I'm not going to give you my hard earned compensation for my labor. And no one else is either. No one is going to work, in order to not benefit from that work.

This is why Lenin and Stalin resorted to forced labor camps. There was no other choice. You can't get people to do hard work like cutting down trees in the icy snow covered forests of seberia, for some bread and water wages.

So you have to get the power of the government, to compel people to work.

No farmer is going to give up their lands, without force. This is why Zimbabwe was shooting and imprisoning white farmers, and confiscating their land. They are simply not going to work hard farming their whole lives, and then voluntarily give their lands for the social good.

This is why Venezuela under Hugo Chavez changed the constitution so the military could be deployed in the cities, and then deployed them at retail stores.

You can blather on that "Socialism is not a government system" but without government enforcing Socialism, it does not exist.

Capitalism is the default standard for all human existence. Socialism has to be enforced.

I watched a video a decade ago about this tribe in some rain forest. And despite the made up utopian claims that tribal people live with a socialist ideology, no.... some men had bigger huts, and some men had smaller huts. Some men had better adornments, and some men didn't.

And what was the factor? Some men worked harder. Some hunted colorful birds, more than other men who sat around the village. The men that worked more, found more colorful feathers, and adorned themselves with them. I find it, I make it, it's mine. You want it? You need to trade me something for it, that is of value to me.

Capitalism. No social ownership at all. The guy with the bigger hut, earned it, or made, it and kept it. They didn't share it with everyone. It was his property.

Capitalism is the default standard of all human existence. You go back to the tribal shepherds, the ones the worked the hardest, had the biggest flocks and were the most wealthy. No socialism. My sheep are mine, not yours.

You take government out of socialism, there is no socialism. Doesn't exist without government. It may pop up for a short time, but it will quickly die out. Even the 1960s hippies figured this out. They all went to live in those communes, and found they sucked, and came back from them pure capitalists.

 

[Andylusion]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

You sure it wasn't the free market, you ignorant fuck, that bailed our country out in the 30s?

Want to know how many start up companies began in the 30s?

No?

Thought not.

Category:Products introduced in the 1930s - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You lose again

Even with all of FDR's command economics?

~~~~~~
FDR's attempts during his first two administrations were failures. The advent of World War II in 1939 pulled America out of the "Great Depression".

FDR’s New Deal Exacerbated the Great Depression

In an interview with an economic organization from India last month, I discussed many of the economic issues associated with coronavirus (fiscal fallout, excess regulation, subsidized unemployment,…

danieljmitchell.wordpress.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Why World War II, Not the New Deal, Ended the Great Depression

On November 27th, I wrote an article on how FDR’s long-standing racism accounted for the detention of Japanese-Americans rather than security concerns

www.counterpunch.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected

fee.org

No it didn't. It just drafted all the unemployed into the army.

No, the Great Depression ended with the expansion of the defense industry first fed by European orders, then Lend Lease and finally with things like the two ocean navy and the concept of the arsenal of democracy. The military never absorbed more than a small percentage of Americans (16,000,000 out of 135,000,000) Industry and food production absorbed the rest.

So let's use facts, over opinion.

Great Depression: Black Thursday, Facts & Effects

The Great Depression was the worst economic downturn in the history of the industrialized world, lasting from the stock market crash of 1929 to 1939.

www.history.com

At the very very worst of the Great Depression.... THE WORST point of the Great Depression.... there were 15 Million unemployed.

Research Starters: The Draft and World War II | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

On September 16, 1940, the United States instituted the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which required all men between the ages of 21 and 45 to register for the draft.

www.nationalww2museum.org

10 Million people were drafted into the Military. Doesn't include people who volunteered.

Research Starters: US Military by the Numbers | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

See a breakdown of numbers in the US military, by branch and year, in World War II.

www.nationalww2museum.org

The military started out in 1939 with 330K people. By 1945, there were 12.2 Million.

Even *IF* we assumed that the number of unemployed in 1939, was exactly the same number as how many were unemployed in 1933 when the Depression was at its worst.... that would still mean that 80% of the total unemployment was eliminated by rounding up men, and shipping them off to war.

2.8 Million people unemployed in a nation of 140 Million at the time, is practically full employment.

The vast vast vast majority of the recovery was not from defense contracts, or anything else.... it was rounding up the men, and shipping them to war.

We could do the same thing to day, by just making being unemployed illegal, and shipping them to prisons.

The real economic recovery only happened, when the men came back from war, and the government removed or reduced all the socialist programs and controls, and capitalism.... as it always does every time it is tried.... worked.

 

[Doc7505]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

You sure it wasn't the free market, you ignorant fuck, that bailed our country out in the 30s?

Want to know how many start up companies began in the 30s?

No?

Thought not.

Category:Products introduced in the 1930s - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You lose again

Even with all of FDR's command economics?

~~~~~~
FDR's attempts during his first two administrations were failures. The advent of World War II in 1939 pulled America out of the "Great Depression".

FDR’s New Deal Exacerbated the Great Depression

In an interview with an economic organization from India last month, I discussed many of the economic issues associated with coronavirus (fiscal fallout, excess regulation, subsidized unemployment,…

danieljmitchell.wordpress.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Why World War II, Not the New Deal, Ended the Great Depression

On November 27th, I wrote an article on how FDR’s long-standing racism accounted for the detention of Japanese-Americans rather than security concerns

www.counterpunch.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected

fee.org

No it didn't. It just drafted all the unemployed into the army.

No, the Great Depression ended with the expansion of the defense industry first fed by European orders, then Lend Lease and finally with things like the two ocean navy and the concept of the arsenal of democracy. The military never absorbed more than a small percentage of Americans (16,000,000 out of 135,000,000) Industry and food production absorbed the rest.

So let's use facts, over opinion.

Great Depression: Black Thursday, Facts & Effects

The Great Depression was the worst economic downturn in the history of the industrialized world, lasting from the stock market crash of 1929 to 1939.

www.history.com

At the very very worst of the Great Depression.... THE WORST point of the Great Depression.... there were 15 Million unemployed.

Research Starters: The Draft and World War II | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

On September 16, 1940, the United States instituted the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which required all men between the ages of 21 and 45 to register for the draft.

www.nationalww2museum.org

10 Million people were drafted into the Military. Doesn't include people who volunteered.

Research Starters: US Military by the Numbers | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

See a breakdown of numbers in the US military, by branch and year, in World War II.

www.nationalww2museum.org

The military started out in 1939 with 330K people. By 1945, there were 12.2 Million.

Even *IF* we assumed that the number of unemployed in 1939, was exactly the same number as how many were unemployed in 1933 when the Depression was at its worst.... that would still mean that 80% of the total unemployment was eliminated by rounding up men, and shipping them off to war.

2.8 Million people unemployed in a nation of 140 Million at the time, is practically full employment.

The vast vast vast majority of the recovery was not from defense contracts, or anything else.... it was rounding up the men, and shipping them to war.

We could do the same thing to day, by just making being unemployed illegal, and shipping them to prisons.

The real economic recovery only happened, when the men came back from war, and the government removed or reduced all the socialist programs and controls, and capitalism.... as it always does every time it is tried.... worked.

You are correct there were 15 million unemployed based upon the population of 121 million and 128 million in the USA during 1928 to 1936.... As compared to 15.4 Million unemployed in a total population of 305 million in America in 2009. The ratio of unemployed in 2009 was less than the unemployment during the 1929 to 1942.
You are correct with the numbers within the military from Dec 1941 to Sep 1945.

 

[Kilroy2]

The main problem is that we don’t have good capitalism.

What is “good capitalism”? We’ve evolved by no longer using slaves as Africa and many other nations still engage in. We have evolved and now have standards and regulations unlike China and other nations that pay children $0.20 per pair to manufacture Nike sneakers.

well the US had sweatshops in the past. So give China and these other new free enterprise countries time to evolve further

Still when Ivanka uses Chinese labor to maker her trademarks products it seems that it is not a question of evolution. Its a question of greed and what can you get away with.

That is bullshit. Let China evolve? Are you kidding? What will make them stop child and slave labor? What will make them actually adhere to environmental standards vs. just signing accords? Oh, you want to hold Ivanka Trump accountable for using China to manufacture her products. That falls short when you stay silent as Lebron James and Colin Kapernick cash their millions from Nike while adding insult to injury crying about oppression on the backs of poor children making Nike products.

The difference between Ivanka and James or Kapernick is that Ivanka owns the company. Spokesmen do not own the companies. They are just paid spokesmen. So it is not falling short. Yet that is what you do when you try to compare the two. Deny that the owner has no culpability.

Also you also refer to it as child labor while I was talking about sweatshops. There is a difference as sweatshop refer to low wages paid and child labor is more using under aged children. Obvious Nike has been accused of it and if you so believe you should not buy their product.

It is a moral issues for a spokesperson to promote a product but then they would have to believe it with no actual first hand knowledge. It is a decision to refuse the money on grounds of not approving of their methods instead of actually accusing the owner or stock purchasers who participate.

Both blacks, whites, spanish players are paid by Nike

Rory Mcllory got 20 - 25 million

Mike Trout is said to be in the 5 million range

are they oppressed no but the certainly do not say no

You are trying to shift the goal posts and make this a Black and White issue. You mention Ivanka Trump, Rory MclRoy, and Mike Trout as ones who are making money out of China similar to Lebron and Kapernick. The difference is the latter are running around talking about oppression in the US while staying silent on oppression in China. You can split hairs and shift goal posts all you want but that is the core issue: being inconsistent about oppression by giving China a pass. I can’t see how anyone can take them serious on the topic of oppression given their inconsistency.

I do believe your brought up lebron and Kapernick.

You say why don't they talk about oppression in China

well show me where Ivanka or or Rory have? Plus you seem to ignoring the fact that Ivanka is a owner , when you are concern with such oppression is somewhat supporting oppression given the fact that she is the daughter of Trump. Yet have you called her out.

I keeping the field level

Ivanka and Rory are not profiting off oppressive labor in China AND calling US oppressive and profiting off that as well. That’s pure hypocrisy.

The main problem is that we don’t have good capitalism.

What is “good capitalism”? We’ve evolved by no longer using slaves as Africa and many other nations still engage in. We have evolved and now have standards and regulations unlike China and other nations that pay children $0.20 per pair to manufacture Nike sneakers.

well the US had sweatshops in the past. So give China and these other new free enterprise countries time to evolve further

Still when Ivanka uses Chinese labor to maker her trademarks products it seems that it is not a question of evolution. Its a question of greed and what can you get away with.

That is bullshit. Let China evolve? Are you kidding? What will make them stop child and slave labor? What will make them actually adhere to environmental standards vs. just signing accords? Oh, you want to hold Ivanka Trump accountable for using China to manufacture her products. That falls short when you stay silent as Lebron James and Colin Kapernick cash their millions from Nike while adding insult to injury crying about oppression on the backs of poor children making Nike products.

The difference between Ivanka and James or Kapernick is that Ivanka owns the company. Spokesmen do not own the companies. They are just paid spokesmen. So it is not falling short. Yet that is what you do when you try to compare the two. Deny that the owner has no culpability.

Also you also refer to it as child labor while I was talking about sweatshops. There is a difference as sweatshop refer to low wages paid and child labor is more using under aged children. Obvious Nike has been accused of it and if you so believe you should not buy their product.

It is a moral issues for a spokesperson to promote a product but then they would have to believe it with no actual first hand knowledge. It is a decision to refuse the money on grounds of not approving of their methods instead of actually accusing the owner or stock purchasers who participate.

Both blacks, whites, spanish players are paid by Nike

Rory Mcllory got 20 - 25 million

Mike Trout is said to be in the 5 million range

are they oppressed no but the certainly do not say no

You are trying to shift the goal posts and make this a Black and White issue. You mention Ivanka Trump, Rory MclRoy, and Mike Trout as ones who are making money out of China similar to Lebron and Kapernick. The difference is the latter are running around talking about oppression in the US while staying silent on oppression in China. You can split hairs and shift goal posts all you want but that is the core issue: being inconsistent about oppression by giving China a pass. I can’t see how anyone can take them serious on the topic of oppression given their inconsistency.

I do believe your brought up lebron and Kapernick.

You say why don't they talk about oppression in China

well show me where Ivanka or or Rory have? Plus you seem to ignoring the fact that Ivanka is a owner , when you are concern with such oppression is somewhat supporting oppression given the fact that she is the daughter of Trump. Yet have you called her out.

I keeping the field level

Ivanka and Rory are not profiting off oppressive labor in China AND calling US oppressive and profiting off that as well. That’s pure hypocrisy.

what is hypocrisy is saying that Ivanka and Rory are not profiting off oppressed labor.

Of course they are not calling US oppressive. Yet they do profit off oppressive labor. Is it hypocritical to own a sweat shop and have nothing to say about oppression?

Comments by Lebron and Kapernick is called freedom of speech. They have an opinion and express it. Trump has an opinion and express it.

Ivanka Trump receives 5 trademarks from China amid trade talks

Ivanka Trump's representatives say the trademarks are needed to protect her name, even though her business is defunct

www.cbsnews.com

China grants 18 trademarks in 2 months to Trump, daughter

SHANGHAI (AP) — The Chinese government granted 18 trademarks to companies linked to President Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump over the last two months, Chinese public records show, raising concerns about conflicts of interest in the White House.

apnews.com

In October, China’s Trademark Office granted provisional approval for 16 trademarks to Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, bringing to 34 the total number of marks China has greenlighted this year, according to the office’s online database. The new approvals cover Ivanka-branded fashion gear including sunglasses, handbags, shoes and jewelry, as well as beauty services and voting machines.

Workers at Chinese factory linked to Ivanka Trump clothing paid $62 a week

A report by the Fair Labor Association found two dozen violations at a Chinese factory where Trump's fashion line has been produced.

www.nbcnews.com

Why McIlroy the brand ticks Nike's boxes
Rory McIlroy, Nike and the $250m, 10-year sponsorship deal

 

[Theowl32]

The main problem is that we don’t have good capitalism.

What is “good capitalism”? We’ve evolved by no longer using slaves as Africa and many other nations still engage in. We have evolved and now have standards and regulations unlike China and other nations that pay children $0.20 per pair to manufacture Nike sneakers.

well the US had sweatshops in the past. So give China and these other new free enterprise countries time to evolve further

Still when Ivanka uses Chinese labor to maker her trademarks products it seems that it is not a question of evolution. Its a question of greed and what can you get away with.

That is bullshit. Let China evolve? Are you kidding? What will make them stop child and slave labor? What will make them actually adhere to environmental standards vs. just signing accords? Oh, you want to hold Ivanka Trump accountable for using China to manufacture her products. That falls short when you stay silent as Lebron James and Colin Kapernick cash their millions from Nike while adding insult to injury crying about oppression on the backs of poor children making Nike products.

The difference between Ivanka and James or Kapernick is that Ivanka owns the company. Spokesmen do not own the companies. They are just paid spokesmen. So it is not falling short. Yet that is what you do when you try to compare the two. Deny that the owner has no culpability.

Also you also refer to it as child labor while I was talking about sweatshops. There is a difference as sweatshop refer to low wages paid and child labor is more using under aged children. Obvious Nike has been accused of it and if you so believe you should not buy their product.

It is a moral issues for a spokesperson to promote a product but then they would have to believe it with no actual first hand knowledge. It is a decision to refuse the money on grounds of not approving of their methods instead of actually accusing the owner or stock purchasers who participate.

Both blacks, whites, spanish players are paid by Nike

Rory Mcllory got 20 - 25 million

Mike Trout is said to be in the 5 million range

are they oppressed no but the certainly do not say no

You are trying to shift the goal posts and make this a Black and White issue. You mention Ivanka Trump, Rory MclRoy, and Mike Trout as ones who are making money out of China similar to Lebron and Kapernick. The difference is the latter are running around talking about oppression in the US while staying silent on oppression in China. You can split hairs and shift goal posts all you want but that is the core issue: being inconsistent about oppression by giving China a pass. I can’t see how anyone can take them serious on the topic of oppression given their inconsistency.

I do believe your brought up lebron and Kapernick.

You say why don't they talk about oppression in China

well show me where Ivanka or or Rory have? Plus you seem to ignoring the fact that Ivanka is a owner , when you are concern with such oppression is somewhat supporting oppression given the fact that she is the daughter of Trump. Yet have you called her out.

I keeping the field level

Ivanka and Rory are not profiting off oppressive labor in China AND calling US oppressive and profiting off that as well. That’s pure hypocrisy.

The main problem is that we don’t have good capitalism.

What is “good capitalism”? We’ve evolved by no longer using slaves as Africa and many other nations still engage in. We have evolved and now have standards and regulations unlike China and other nations that pay children $0.20 per pair to manufacture Nike sneakers.

well the US had sweatshops in the past. So give China and these other new free enterprise countries time to evolve further

Still when Ivanka uses Chinese labor to maker her trademarks products it seems that it is not a question of evolution. Its a question of greed and what can you get away with.

That is bullshit. Let China evolve? Are you kidding? What will make them stop child and slave labor? What will make them actually adhere to environmental standards vs. just signing accords? Oh, you want to hold Ivanka Trump accountable for using China to manufacture her products. That falls short when you stay silent as Lebron James and Colin Kapernick cash their millions from Nike while adding insult to injury crying about oppression on the backs of poor children making Nike products.

The difference between Ivanka and James or Kapernick is that Ivanka owns the company. Spokesmen do not own the companies. They are just paid spokesmen. So it is not falling short. Yet that is what you do when you try to compare the two. Deny that the owner has no culpability.

Also you also refer to it as child labor while I was talking about sweatshops. There is a difference as sweatshop refer to low wages paid and child labor is more using under aged children. Obvious Nike has been accused of it and if you so believe you should not buy their product.

It is a moral issues for a spokesperson to promote a product but then they would have to believe it with no actual first hand knowledge. It is a decision to refuse the money on grounds of not approving of their methods instead of actually accusing the owner or stock purchasers who participate.

Both blacks, whites, spanish players are paid by Nike

Rory Mcllory got 20 - 25 million

Mike Trout is said to be in the 5 million range

are they oppressed no but the certainly do not say no

You are trying to shift the goal posts and make this a Black and White issue. You mention Ivanka Trump, Rory MclRoy, and Mike Trout as ones who are making money out of China similar to Lebron and Kapernick. The difference is the latter are running around talking about oppression in the US while staying silent on oppression in China. You can split hairs and shift goal posts all you want but that is the core issue: being inconsistent about oppression by giving China a pass. I can’t see how anyone can take them serious on the topic of oppression given their inconsistency.

I do believe your brought up lebron and Kapernick.

You say why don't they talk about oppression in China

well show me where Ivanka or or Rory have? Plus you seem to ignoring the fact that Ivanka is a owner , when you are concern with such oppression is somewhat supporting oppression given the fact that she is the daughter of Trump. Yet have you called her out.

I keeping the field level

Ivanka and Rory are not profiting off oppressive labor in China AND calling US oppressive and profiting off that as well. That’s pure hypocrisy.

what is hypocrisy is saying that Ivanka and Rory are not profiting off oppressed labor.

Of course they are not calling US oppressive. Yet they do profit off oppressive labor. Is it hypocritical to own a sweat shop and have nothing to say about oppression?

Comments by Lebron and Kapernick is called freedom of speech. They have an opinion and express it. Trump has an opinion and express it.

Ivanka Trump receives 5 trademarks from China amid trade talks

Ivanka Trump's representatives say the trademarks are needed to protect her name, even though her business is defunct

www.cbsnews.com

China grants 18 trademarks in 2 months to Trump, daughter

SHANGHAI (AP) — The Chinese government granted 18 trademarks to companies linked to President Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump over the last two months, Chinese public records show, raising concerns about conflicts of interest in the White House.

apnews.com

In October, China’s Trademark Office granted provisional approval for 16 trademarks to Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, bringing to 34 the total number of marks China has greenlighted this year, according to the office’s online database. The new approvals cover Ivanka-branded fashion gear including sunglasses, handbags, shoes and jewelry, as well as beauty services and voting machines.

Workers at Chinese factory linked to Ivanka Trump clothing paid $62 a week

A report by the Fair Labor Association found two dozen violations at a Chinese factory where Trump's fashion line has been produced.

www.nbcnews.com

Why McIlroy the brand ticks Nike's boxes
Rory McIlroy, Nike and the $250m, 10-year sponsorship deal

Like commie Kaepernick profits off of slave labor? Well, he does, doesn't he?

That's ok though, right?

He's black. Soooooo, no big deal to the American left who feign outrage over hourly wage, but have ZERO PROBLEM with their favorite multi millionaire victim hero making $50 million dollar playing a victim for Nike, whose factories are in Vietnam and Pakistan.

That right?

 

[danielpalos]

I know you are trying to make a rtwingnutjob point here but you are actually correct. Socialism can't work because it's not a government model. It's an Economic Model like Capitalism is. Anytime a country tries to pass itself off as a Socialist Government if you look a bit deeper you will actually see a more sinister Government Model like Dictatorship, Oliarchy or Fascism. The only exception to the fascism rule was Spain under Franco who was closer to a Military Dictator than a Fascist. Unlike the other two Fascists of his day, he was the only one that didn't have designs of world domination. ALL successful Governments are formed under the design of a Federal Republic and use a mix of Social and Capitalism to keep things together.

Hate to break it to you but anyone claiming to be a Marxist, Communist or Socialist is just lying. And anyone claiming that they know someone that is lying just as much.

But see that is a dumb point, because without government... then it is not even an economic model, or any model.

Without government, socialism can't exist. By definition, you can't have common ownership without something to administrate that common ownership.

Take government out of socialism and what do you have? Nothing. Because I'm not going to give you my hard earned compensation for my labor. And no one else is either. No one is going to work, in order to not benefit from that work.

This is why Lenin and Stalin resorted to forced labor camps. There was no other choice. You can't get people to do hard work like cutting down trees in the icy snow covered forests of seberia, for some bread and water wages.

So you have to get the power of the government, to compel people to work.

No farmer is going to give up their lands, without force. This is why Zimbabwe was shooting and imprisoning white farmers, and confiscating their land. They are simply not going to work hard farming their whole lives, and then voluntarily give their lands for the social good.

This is why Venezuela under Hugo Chavez changed the constitution so the military could be deployed in the cities, and then deployed them at retail stores.

You can blather on that "Socialism is not a government system" but without government enforcing Socialism, it does not exist.

Capitalism is the default standard for all human existence. Socialism has to be enforced.

I watched a video a decade ago about this tribe in some rain forest. And despite the made up utopian claims that tribal people live with a socialist ideology, no.... some men had bigger huts, and some men had smaller huts. Some men had better adornments, and some men didn't.

And what was the factor? Some men worked harder. Some hunted colorful birds, more than other men who sat around the village. The men that worked more, found more colorful feathers, and adorned themselves with them. I find it, I make it, it's mine. You want it? You need to trade me something for it, that is of value to me.

Capitalism. No social ownership at all. The guy with the bigger hut, earned it, or made, it and kept it. They didn't share it with everyone. It was his property.

Capitalism is the default standard of all human existence. You go back to the tribal shepherds, the ones the worked the hardest, had the biggest flocks and were the most wealthy. No socialism. My sheep are mine, not yours.

You take government out of socialism, there is no socialism. Doesn't exist without government. It may pop up for a short time, but it will quickly die out. Even the 1960s hippies figured this out. They all went to live in those communes, and found they sucked, and came back from them pure capitalists.

Government is socialism.

Where has anarcho-capitalism ever existed? Mogadishu fell after a few years.

All "unfettered capitalism" offers is boom and bust.