August 7, 2018
Socialism's Downfall
By Steve McCann

With the unexpected success of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries and Democrats swooning over the newest face in the crowd, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, socialism – or its latest euphemism, "Democratic Socialism" – is the new hot-button issue of the American left and its Millennial allies, who are enamored by its egalitarian rhetoric. Socialism has been ruinous everywhere it has been tried, yet this cabal is just the latest in a long line of true believers throughout the Western world, convinced that they are so exceptional that they can succeed where so many before them have failed. Their naïveté oozes from every pore as they mindlessly rail against capitalism and tout the theoretical benefits of socialism.

Why has socialism failed everywhere it has been tried – and why does it continue to do so – despite the best efforts of the die-hard true believers in the United States and the rest of the world? The original and current proponents of socialism fail to take into account one basic and immutable factor: the fundamental nature of the human race.

The most dominant trait mankind has, as do all living creatures, is an innate desire to survive and prosper.

While some may willingly choose to pursue subsistence on their own terms, to the majority of the human race, the path of least resistance is the most desired. Thus, mankind is susceptible to financial scams, gambling, crime, and resentment or violence toward those who may have more. Above all, far too many people are open to the concept of a central authority providing them with the means of livelihood.

A secondary characteristic of the human race, again shared by other species, is the need by some within the group to conquer or maintain control over their fellow creatures.

The mid-19th century saw the dawning of the Industrial Revolution and the rise in living standards and education for the populace in Europe. It was this same period that saw the advent of socialist-Marxist theory. In nations rapidly industrializing, those who considered themselves superior to the masses, and in the past may have achieved ruling status through the power of intimidation over the illiterate and unwashed, now had to look to other means to achieve control of the levers of government.

Following the basic blueprint as set out by Marx and Engels, by the early part of the 20th century, the easiest course to assume this power was to promise, in return for the support of the majority of the people, that the state, through a new ruling class, would provide the citizenry cradle-to-grave economic security. Thus, a Faustian bargain encompassing the desire by the majority for ease of survival, and others for the need to rule, would be entered into.

This arrangement contains the seeds of its own destruction. For socialism to succeed, it must have an economic underpinning that can provide the foundation for massive social spending. Following the guidelines as set out by Karl Marx, the Soviet Union as early as the 1920s and '30s proved, beyond any doubt, that complete state control of the means of production was a colossal failure, as it could not begin to produce anywhere near enough wealth to support the population. Therefore, to have any chance of success, socialism would have to evolve into a parasite attaching itself to capitalism until the host eventually succumbed.

Only the capitalist economic system operating within an open and free society, which is anathema to a powerful central government and its attendant oligarchy, can produce sufficient wealth to underwrite a social safety net for the general public, provide employment for the populace, and finance the basic services provided by government at all levels.

Capitalism, reflective of that portion of mankind choosing to seek subsistence on their own terms, does by its nature celebrate the success of the individual, not the collective. Individuals, separately or together, driven by the motive of self-enrichment, produce goods and services desired by others. In the process, jobs and wealth are created, benefiting society as a whole.

A massive tension exists between those who adhere to central government control and swear fealty to socialist-Marxist philosophy and those who produce the wealth of a nation. The state inherently has more power than the individual, and once the left-wing or socialist element of the ruling class irretrievably assumes power, government becomes the vehicle to inexorably meddle in and manipulate the affairs and livelihood of the individual and producer class (which is always a minority in any society).

Those who believe they have a manifest destiny to rule and are faithful to socialist dogma have a predisposition to control the populace and economic activity through laws, regulations, taxes, and intimidation. Despite the lessons of the Soviet Union, Venezuela and Communist China and their state control of the economy, as well as many Euro-socialist nations rapidly turning away from statism, every new generation of adherents to socialist ideology believe that they can make this fallacious philosophy work and maintain their arrangement with the citizenry while, not coincidentally, enriching themselves.

The reality is that they cannot: the economic engine of capitalism will not continue to produce wealth if it is increasingly taxed and put under the thumb of bureaucrats and central planners inevitably attempting not only to institute state control of the economy, but also to regulate the day-to-day lives of all citizens. The motivation of the producer class will be stifled, and the producers will drop out, join the dependent class, or simply move to other more hospitable countries.

These governments, as history has shown, will then turn to excessive and unsustainable borrowing and inflation to finance their societal obligations. The implied contract between the statists and the citizens who were promised cradle-to-grave security cannot be maintained, as the economic underpinning of this arrangement quickly erodes. The standard of living will drop precipitously. Political upheaval and potential violence lie just below the surface. Thus the dire situation of the citizens in nations such as Cuba and Venezuela as well as other failed states in Africa and South America.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, one of the greatest confluences of brilliant minds in the history of mankind, understood the basic nature of human beings. They accordingly set forth a form of government and a written constitution to limit those who seek hegemony over the people, especially those seeking unlimited economic security from an all-powerful central government. They recognized that only the individual free to pursue economic happiness would result in a society wherein all benefit on a sustained basis.

The latest generation of the proponents of socialism in the United States have never endured any national adversity, as this country has experienced unprecedented peace and prosperity for nearly four generations. Far too many, because of a desire to be part of the in crowd as well as outright ignorance, are captivated by the egalitarian theory of socialism-Marxism without realizing that it is no more than a vehicle for others to seize power by exploiting the foibles of human nature in order to control and manipulate the people, including many of those currently and ignorantly espousing its so-called virtues.

https://www.americanthinker.co...alisms_downfall.html

Socialism only works if you are like an ant or bee/wasp. That is, you give up all individualism to be a tiny part of a collective or hive. Humans are simply not geared that way and will never be. That is why socialism will always fail.

We are borg....you will be assimilated.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Socialism only works if you are like an ant or bee/wasp. That is, you give up all individualism to be a tiny part of a collective or hive. Humans are simply not geared that way and will never be. That is why socialism will always fail.

Correct. As I've noted frequently, socialism violates basic human nature making it incompatible with our very existence.

I swear...the older I get, the STUPIDER society gets. What part of "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" don't people get??



I wish our Republican nominees, when debating their demoshit opponents, would just do a simple slide show of Venezuela, Cuba, and other shit-hole countries that have tried socialism and failed...MISERABLY!

WaPo Columnist: Socialism Just Means Stuff I Like

Ben Shapiro

On Monday, Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig penned her latest ode to socialism – a column in which she pointed out the vagary of the “socialist” label, then utterly failed to define it while simultaneously touting the term. Now, Bruenig is right that people have applied the label in spotty fashion; I’ve been guilty of that myself, without a doubt. But Bruenig is similarly guilty of vaguely applying socialism to stuff she likes, while disowning stuff she doesn’t. She’s guilty of the “no true socialists” fallacy – thus, Venezuela, Cuba, and the Soviet Union aren’t truly socialist, but Norway and Sweden are.

Bruenig begins by pointing out the rising popularity of socialism once more among Democrats. And she rightly discusses the problem of defining socialism:

The United States doesn’t have a familiar, established socialist history to look to for guidance on what socialism might mean in this country. But that doesn’t mean socialism is hopelessly nebulous, or that Americans who are interested in the idea are wandering dabblers. It just means that socialism, like any sophisticated term, warrants thoughtful consideration. Socialism has meant different things to different people in different times and places, while maintaining a stable core of themes and objectives: social (as opposed to private) control of the means of production, and of all the societal, humanitarian and political-economic changes that entails, especially where the freedom and autonomy of working people are concerned.

All of this would be fine, except that Bruenig doesn’t exactly define her terms. Is she in favor of large-scale nationalization of resources – and are there any industries she’d exempt? If so, why? Is it possible for her to be any less specific when she talks about the “societal, humanitarian and political-economic changes that entails”? What level of compulsion is she discussing? What would the legal framework look like? All we’ve heard so far are buzzwords.

Unfortunately, that tendency continues for Bruenig:

For the non-Marxian English socialists of the 1840s, socialism mainly meant opposition to the competitive, dehumanizing effects of liberal economics, local experiments with communitarianism and cooperatives, and demands for the privileges of freedom, autonomy and participation in government to extend to the lower classes. Meanwhile, Marxian socialism focused on the conditions of production — who owns what, the relationships between wage-earners and owners, and how stuff gets made in a society — and the kind of politics those conditions produce. Even when “socialism” was a relatively new term, in other words, its exact meaning was disputed.

All of which is true – but unhelpful. Most free-market people wouldn’t oppose the notion that social fabric must be strong to support a free market (see, e.g., Russell Kirk), or the notion that people should vote, or the belief that private collectives have the capacity to start co-ops (see the religious co-ops that now predominate in America in the medical sphere). Yet, Bruenig would go further, as would democratic socialists.

How far would they go? Bruenig never explicitly says. Instead, she merely posits confusion:

The profusion of disparate historical examples of socialist governments can understandably cause confusion about what socialism looks like on the ground: Soviet Russia or modern-day Norway? One may as well ask if the United Arab Emirates or the United States of America is really capitalist. The answer, in both cases, has to do with varieties, degrees, democracy and methodology.

True! But where does she draw the line? Nobody knows. Yet she maintains that the support for socialism isn’t actually a support for vague notions of fairness – it’s a term with content, even if she can’t really define the content:

Clarifying exactly what “socialism” means once and for all likely won’t happen anytime soon. But that doesn’t mean that voters who are attracted to democratic socialist politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez don’t know what they’re getting into. Proposals to wipe out so-called right-to-work laws, to make college tuition-free or to provide universal health care are resonating with those supporters.

All of that is true, too, but too broad: embracing certain socialist programs like universal health care isn’t embracing full-scale socialism as an economic system, and Bruenig knows it. And part of the appeal of both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez is that they refuse to spell out precisely how they wish to achieve their socialist plans with regard to education and universal healthcare. But it serves her purposes to use Norway and Denmark as examples of the socialist state, even if they’re built on capitalist foundations. Bruenig decries the level of vagueness surrounding the term socialism, but then just says the popular stuff is socialist, and as for the rest…well, radical change is necessary isn’t it? So long as we don’t get too specific about it, that is.

At the heart of the democratic socialist vision flowering on the American left is the recognition that more than policy tweaks will be needed to empower everyday people to participate meaningfully in society and democracy.

So, which is it? Is socialism a radical program of change, or is it just piling a few redistributionist programs atop a capitalist infrastructure? Bruenig won’t say, because in the end, it’s all just about mouthing platitudes:

Working Americans deserve a say in how the country’s vast wealth will be used, and that will be possible only when inequality is reduced, corporate and big-money donors are banished from politics, and lawmakers are truly accountable to the people. It’s not so much to ask. But democratic socialists are the only ones asking.

This is utterly false. Working Americans have a say in the rules by which wealth is generated – it’s called a republic. It’s quite difficult to claim that only democratic socialists are asking about making lawmakers accountable to the public, when the Tea Party was pushing just that accountability long before the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders. Most of all, it's assuming the conclusion to suggest that workers only have a say when they agree with Elizabeth Bruenig, and when the system reflects Elizabeth Bruenig's preferred policy prescriptions.

Bruenig seems not to be sure whether she’s upset about socialism’s vagueness, or pleased by the fact that it’s a rubric that can be applied at will. In the interests of clarity, it would be nice for democratic socialists to actually say what they believe, rather than picking and choosing from the world’s various systems without applying much systemic analysis at all.

https://www.dailywire.com/news...-stuff-i-ben-shapiro

Even with socialism, somebody’s getting rich. Just ask Bernie Sanders wife...

… or Hugo Chavez's daughter

quote:

Socialism has meant different things to different people in different times and places, while maintaining a stable core of themes and objectives:

I'm usually a Shapiro fan, but this article is silly. Who really cares what the finite definition of socialism really is, and is it really that important to fully define it? I don't think so. The question that needs to be asked in regard to socialism is..."Where has socialism ever been implemented where it made the lives of everyone better?" The answer is of course, no where. Capitalism, although not a perfect system, has done more to raise the quality of life for more people worldwide than any other 'ism' in existence today.

The only effort Shapiro or the rest of us need to make when it comes to socialism is to fully discredit it as a vicious, violent, failed, and completely incompatible form of governance.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Socialism has meant different things to different people in different times and places, while maintaining a stable core of themes and objectives:

I'm usually a Shapiro fan, but this article is silly. Who really cares what the finite definition of socialism really is, and is it really that important to fully define it? I don't think so. The question that needs to be asked in regard to socialism is..."Where has socialism ever been implemented where it made the lives of everyone better?" The answer is of course, no where. Capitalism, although not a perfect system, has done more to raise the quality of life for more people worldwide than any other 'ism' in existence today.

The only effort Shapiro or the rest of us need to make when it comes to socialism is to fully discredit it as a vicious, violent, failed, and completely incompatible form of governance.

How do you know it has been implemented if you can’t define what it is?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Socialism has meant different things to different people in different times and places, while maintaining a stable core of themes and objectives:

I'm usually a Shapiro fan, but this article is silly. Who really cares what the finite definition of socialism really is, and is it really that important to fully define it? I don't think so. The question that needs to be asked in regard to socialism is..."Where has socialism ever been implemented where it made the lives of everyone better?" The answer is of course, no where. Capitalism, although not a perfect system, has done more to raise the quality of life for more people worldwide than any other 'ism' in existence today.

The only effort Shapiro or the rest of us need to make when it comes to socialism is to fully discredit it as a vicious, violent, failed, and completely incompatible form of governance.

How do you know it has been implemented if you can’t define what it is?

By simply listening to those in charge tell you what they're version of governance is. Cuba, Venezuela, and others will not only tell you they are socialist regimes, they'll pat themselves on the back for it. And in every case, wherever the term has been used, regardless the finite definite, the regime has failed and people as a whole have suffered immeasurably.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:


The only effort Shapiro or the rest of us need to make when it comes to socialism is to fully discredit it as a vicious, violent, failed, and completely incompatible form of governance.

How do you know it has been implemented if you can’t define what it is?

By simply listening to those in charge tell you what they're version of governance is. Cuba, Venezuela, and others will not only tell you they are socialist regimes, they'll pat themselves on the back for it. And in every case, wherever the term has been used, regardless the finite definite, the regime has failed and people as a whole have suffered immeasurably.

That is awfully flexible. How do you know they know what they are talking about?

Look at the looney running for Congress as a socialist. Is there any reason to think she has any real idea what she is talking about, given the statements she has made so far? She might not have the same parameters as the Cuban and Venezuela models.

Even in this country, where many believe in free private enterprise and capitalism, without defining guideposts, they don’t realize how far down the slippery socialist slope our country has progressed. That may be part of the ruse, to keep folks uncertain, confused, the concepts ill-defined. If you can’t convince ‘em, confuse ‘em!

quote:

Even in this country, where many believe in free private enterprise and capitalism, without defining guideposts, they don’t realize how far down the slippery socialist slope our country has progressed. That may be part of the ruse, to keep folks uncertain, confused, the concepts ill-defined.

It's a good point, JALLEN.

We have gone pretty far down the slippery socialist slope over the last 100 years or so.
We may not be fully socialist, but we have implemented socialist programs in education, retirement funding and health insurance.

My definition of capitalism is very simple and easy to share: Voluntary transactions between willing participants.
It's simply what happens absent government interference or coercion. It does require a fairly advanced legal system to interpret and enforce contracts which are simply the evidence of: Voluntary transactions between willing participants.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Even in this country, where many believe in free private enterprise and capitalism, without defining guideposts, they don’t realize how far down the slippery socialist slope our country has progressed. That may be part of the ruse, to keep folks uncertain, confused, the concepts ill-defined.

It's a good point, JALLEN.

We have gone pretty far down the slippery socialist slope over the last 100 years or so.
We may not be fully socialist, but we have implemented socialist programs in education, retirement funding and health insurance.

My definition of capitalism is very simple and easy to share: Voluntary transactions between willing participants.
It's simply what happens absent government interference or coercion. It does require a fairly advanced legal system to interpret and enforce contracts which are simply the evidence of: Voluntary transactions between willing participants.

That is closer to free private enterprise than to one of the “-isms.” In general, capitalism features features the means of production privately owned, as distinguished from socialism which has the means of production in collective, usually government ownership. Sometimes, the means of consumption is collective as well, and this is often a distinction of communism.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
That is awfully flexible. How do you know they know what they are talking about?

Look at the looney running for Congress as a socialist. Is there any reason to think she has any real idea what she is talking about, given the statements she has made so far? She might not have the same parameters as the Cuban and Venezuela models.

Even in this country, where many believe in free private enterprise and capitalism, without defining guideposts, they don’t realize how far down the slippery socialist slope our country has progressed. That may be part of the ruse, to keep folks uncertain, confused, the concepts ill-defined. If you can’t convince ‘em, confuse ‘em!

You're kind of missing the point I was trying to make. Do I need to believe that that dingbat from New York running as a Democratic Socialist knows what the hell she's talking about when it come to socialism? Nope. All I need to recognize is that what she is espousing is dangerous to the future of this country, and I want nothing to do with it. Maybe I'm painting with a very broad brush, but if you wrap the term socialism, or one of its synonyms, around any concept, I think that concept should be refuted and denounced as unacceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
We have gone pretty far down the slippery socialist slope over the last 100 years or so.
We may not be fully socialist, but we have implemented socialist programs....

I think the government fully owning the lending apparatus' for college loans and private mortgages are shining examples of the large scale socialization of large subsets of our economy that the rank and file don't even see.