• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

Trump rejects socialism at SOTU as expressionless Dems sit unmoved

The myth of kinder, gentler socialism

Postby smix » Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:07 pm

The myth of kinder, gentler socialism
The Livingston Enterprise

URL: https://www.livingstonenterprise.com/co ... -socialism
Category: Politics
Published: February 27, 2019

Description: Venezuela is a socialist country. Venezuela is also a dictatorship. Currently, Venezuela has fallen into open violence and complete chaos, with the strongman Nicolas Maduro ordering troops to open fire on those attempting to bring humanitarian aid into the country. Yet, strangely, Maduro still has his defenders. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the leading declared Democratic 2020 presidential candidate and avowed socialist, refuses to label Maduro a “dictator.” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said in full 9/11 truther mode, “Democrats need to be careful about a potential trap being set by Trump et al in Venezuela. Cheering humanitarian convoys sounds like the right thing to do, but what if it’s not about the aid?” Fresh Face of the Democratic Party Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has remained shockingly silent about Venezuela, except to tell The Daily Caller News Foundation, “I think that, you know, the humanitarian crisis is extremely concerning but, you know, when we use non-Democratic means to determine leadership, that’s also concerning, as well.” Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., another Fresh Face of the Democratic Party, grilled U.S. envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams in an obvious attempt to stall on behalf of a gentler approach to Maduro. Why the shocking unwillingness by the socialist hard-liners in the Democratic Party to condemn Maduro and join the rest of the world in calling for his ouster? After all, we’ve been assured by Sanders, AOC, Omar and others that true socialism isn’t at stake in Venezuela — true socialism can be found in nations like Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Yet even so, these socialist Democrats can’t find it in their hearts to cut ties with Venezuela. How strange. Perhaps it’s because Sanders and his crowd understand full well that Venezuela is an excellent case study in socialism — nationalization of major industries by a centralized government, abolition of the profit motive and redistribution of resources via tyranny. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that Sanders was praising the Soviet Union (he said it had “a whole variety of programs for young people and cultural programs which go far beyond what we do in this country”), Nicaraguan Sandanista Daniel Ortega and Cuba’s Fidel Castro (“... he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed the society.”). And then there’s the inconvenient fact that the countries that Sanders himself calls socialist totally reject the label. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt launched into Sanders this week, stating, “Bernie Sanders was lucky to be able to get to the Soviet Union in 1988 and praise all its stunning socialist achievements before the entire system and empire collapsed under the weight of its own spectacular failures.” In 2015, Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen scoffed at Sanders’ dreams of a socialist utopia, noting, “The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.” Here is the sad truth about socialism: Socialism drives economies into the ground in exact proportion to its prominence in the economy. Capitalism creates prosperity. It’s convenient for Sanders and company to point to the Nordic countries as models of socialism when they are obviously founded on free markets, with socialistic redistribution schemes stacked atop that free market foundation. But deep down, Sanders knows that the truer reflection of socialism lies in Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Union. And that’s why Sanders simply can’t bring himself to disown Venezuelan socialism, even to prop up the lie that socialism wasn’t truly tried in Venezuela.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1781108
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

‘Bubblegum Socialism’ Is No Laughing Matter

Postby smix » Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:23 am

‘Bubblegum Socialism’ Is No Laughing Matter
Townhall

URL: https://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr ... r-n2543009
Category: Politics
Published: March 13, 2019

Description: There is a video of Bernie Sanders and his wife on their 1988 honeymoon in the USSR, in which a shirtless Bernie is shown singing “This Land Is Your Land” with a bunch of drunk communists. It is a vignette apparently welcomed nowadays by the Senator from Vermont, who proudly represents true, “old school” socialism. Sanders’ doctrine is a far cry from the “bubblegum socialism” eagerly embraced by many 21st century Millennials, including the Congresswoman from New York’s 14th congressional district; but it must be taken just as seriously, if not more so. Today’s socialism is no laughing matter. Socialism is socialism; and in whatever form is completely at odds with free political and economic enterprise that are at the core of our system of government. This holds true whether one considers the dry and pedantic old-school variety hawked by Sanders, or the bouncy, bubble-gum iteration gleefully spouted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And while it is easy to dismiss the latter, with its inane talk of “farting cows” or “garbage” capitalism, we do so at our peril; for the appeal of such nonsense is finding an easy mark in much of today’s American youth. With socialist Venezuela visibly dying under the burden of a dictatorial socialist government, we might properly expect that “socialism” should be getting trounced in public opinion polls; yet the concept continues to draw voters to its siren song, especially younger ones. At the most basic level, this phenomenon is actually not difficult to comprehend. For more than two generations, Americans have come of age being told that government is the solution to every one of society’s ills (real or perceived). The process of turning to government to solve every problem faced by the citizenry has created the fertile breeding ground in which today’s Millennials embrace precisely what this is -- socialism. Dismissing the antics of Ocasio-Cortez with snarky rebuttals or superficial jokes misses this key point. She is not the problem. She is merely the face of the far deeper malady infecting American culture and western civilization generally. It is a cultural problem an inch deep but a thousand miles wide. Notions of socialism now reach far into our political system and the American business sector; its tentacles have entwined the entertainment industry, and it has sucked the lifeblood from our once-outstanding educational system. Dealing effectively with socialist tropes like “capitalism is irredeemable” or that incremental change to the status quo is simply shifting around “garbage,” requires far more than the superficial sound bites many in the GOP throw back at socialism’s minions like Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Kamala Harris (who claims not to be a “democratic socialist” but refuses to define even what that means to her). Rather than the easy road of responding to today’s American socialists on their level of superficiality, conservatives must define and focus on the moral superiority of capitalism. That debate begins with defining free enterprise as the very foundation of American economic and political freedom; and moves on then to asking of Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their socialist compatriots why they prefer a system that crushes human freedom in pursuit of collective mediocrity. We must aggressively and publicly support the efforts being led currently by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to make education great again. Copies of the Constitution of the United States must be distributed in schools to every student in every grade; accompanied in high school by a copy of the Federalist as required study. Policy debates among adults about the proper role of government -- whether in the context of Roe v. Wade or President Trump’s declaration of a “national emergency” at our southern border – are largely wasted if not truly understood in the context of what our government is, was supposed to be, and has become. In October 1964, then-private citizen Ronald Reagan birthed a political movement and stirred a nation to action, with his nationally-broadcast speech declaring a “rendezvous with destiny.” Reagan identified the existential dangers facing American civilization (including the burgeoning growth of government and the threat from socialism’s bigger brother, communism). Drawing then on the reservoir of goodwill, patriotism and education bequeathed to us by our predecessor generations, Reagan warned that without girding for and meeting head-on the battle already looming, we would doom our children and grandchildren to a “thousand years of darkness.” Bernie Sanders was 23-years old when Reagan delivered that speech. In his heart, Sanders knows the power of words such as Reagan’s; he witnessed the Soviet Union he so warmly embraced crumble in the face of the strategy unleashed against it by the forces to which Reagan gave voice. Eloquence and reason such as uttered by Reagan, if backed by actions consistent therewith, can defeat socialism in whatever form it marches; but only if we fight it with substance and understanding – two commodities in far too short supply in this year 2019 A.D.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1781108
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Americans Are Still Confused About What Socialism Actually Is

Postby smix » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:44 pm

Americans Are Still Confused About What Socialism Actually Is
Reason

URL: https://reason.com/archives/2019/03/15/ ... about-what
Category: Politics
Published: March 15, 2019

Description: Soviet revolutionary Vladimir Lenin used the motto, “Land to the peasants, peace to the nations, bread to the starving.” Sounds good, right?

socialism-if-we-cant-all-be-rich-lets-be-equally-poor.jpg

Based on quite a few responses, I've come up with three main answers. First, a surprising number of people still are seduced by its nice-sounding promises. Second, some politicians and activists are using the term again, which gives rise to this discussion. If you ask the public anything, including the virtues of cannibalism or self-immolation, a certain percentage will like the idea. Third, many people think wanting more social-welfare programs is the same as being socialist. It is a good idea for people living in a self-governing democracy to have discussions about basic political philosophy even if the debates can become overheated in a world dominated by social media. As King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." The same ideas and temptations are always with us, so reprising musty old debates is healthy. Here goes. Regarding the first answer, some readers criticized me for bringing up the suffering in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Cuba and Venezuela. That's not socialism, they say, but communism. Russia was known as the United Soviet Socialist Republic and all such regimes referred to themselves as socialist, but, yes, communism is an extreme example. But both rely on the transfer of power from individuals to the state. As the saying goes, any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Socialistic governments of all types obliterate the incentive to work and invest, so they end up just taking things away. Today's democratic socialists are, quite obviously, not calling for the creation of gulags and state ownership of everything, even if some of them (see Bernie Sanders) had nice things to say about Cuba's Fidel Castro and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega. But those "bad" socialists and communists didn't call for those horrors, either. Soviet revolutionary Vladimir Lenin used the motto, "Land to the peasants, peace to the nations, bread to the starving." Sounds good, right? Hugo Chavez didn't promise that in 10 years people would be hunting rats out of dumpsters to feed their families, but wrote into Venezuela's constitution that, "Health is a fundamental social right, an obligation of the state." As late as 2013, prominent progressive activists were still praising the country's economic miracle. Today's democratic socialists probably emulate a Scandinavian welfare state, but those countries are not socialist and are moving in a less redistributionist direction. There is indeed nothing new. Perhaps it's human nature to cheer politicians who make grandiose promises that don't pan out, while being overly critical of the flaws in a system that has created unparalleled wealth and opportunity. But can't we try to be a little wiser? Regarding the second answer, the renewed and proud use of the socialist term is what I'm reacting against. Similarly, I'm also troubled by some American conservatives, including our president, who proudly use the "nationalist" term. Christian writer C.S. Lewis described patriotism as love of country, but wrote that nationalism can lead to "a devilish form of ideological thinking that propels morally destructive powers into leadership." Left or right, terminology matters. Most of my life was set against a Cold War backdrop. My father and his family were rounded up by the Nazis. My wife's family suffered through Polish communism, so I'm more willing than many others to believe that American variants of "socialism" or "nationalism" can go too far. In the column, I mentioned the Democratic Socialists of America website, which argues that "working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs." You don't think that idea—people apparently should vote on how other people's businesses are managed—could lead to draconian results? Yes, early American socialists championed women's suffrage and an end to child labor. Socialists, however, weren't the only people pushing those policies, which aren't "socialism" as much as reforms that take hold as nations become more prosperous and enlightened thanks to industrialization and, yes, market capitalism. Regarding the third answer, some critics noted that Western democracies have passed socialistic programs such as Social Security and Medicare—and that hasn't led to gulags. True enough. Wealthy, capitalistic nations have the excess wealth to afford costly entitlements. But look at the resulting debt levels. These Ponzi schemes are unsustainable and do an iffy job providing comfortable retirements and health care for the masses. They embody many flaws of socialism, even if they have not led to disaster. That could change because Democratic socialists want to expand them much further. Polls say large percentages of Americans have a vaguely warm view about socialism. The best response is to highlight its failures in its many forms, especially as some politicians use the term in a positive way. Let the debate continue.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1781108
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Socialism: An Old Dogma With No New Tricks

Postby smix » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:28 pm

Socialism: An Old Dogma With No New Tricks
The American Spectator

URL: https://spectator.org/socialism-an-old- ... ew-tricks/
Category: Politics
Published: March 18, 2019

Description: Donald Trump knows what he’s running against, even if its proponents are deaf and blind to what they’re running for.

old-dog-bernie.jpg

When people like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez extol the virtues of socialism it reminds me of Dorothy Parker’s pun, “You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks.” Parker’s quip had nothing to do with politics, of course. It was about religion. This, ironically, renders it uniquely applicable to the recent resurgence of public interest in this hoary collectivist doctrine. The belief that replacing free market capitalism with socialism would result in a more equitable society requires a leap of faith. Unlike belief in Christianity or Judaism, for example, it requires blind faith combined with illiteracy in history and economics. Whereas the religions noted above thrive after two millennia of critical examination by civilization’s greatest minds, socialist dogma can’t survive a cursory perusal by a first-year economics student. This is why its increasing number of vocal advocates in Congress must camouflage its true implications with shopworn shibboleths — Sanders’ preferred method — or incoherent word salads — the strategy necessarily employed by the improbably obtuse AOC. But bromides and balderdash won’t cut it in 2020 if the Democrats offer socialism as an alternative to the successful capitalist policies deployed by President Trump. Indeed, if the Democrats haven’t realized it yet, Trump is already running against socialism. It is not a coincidence that he has responded to the increasing visibility of proud socialists like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders by explicitly stating in his SOTU address — and later at CPAC—that “America will never be a socialist country.” Trump knows that AOC, as Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez said last summer, is “the future of our party.” He also knows that Sanders, nominally an Independent, is essentially tied with Joe Biden for the lead among the herd of prospective Democratic presidential candidates. With AOC as the face of the party and Sanders as a plausible Democratic presidential nominee, the electorate is likely to be responsive to Trump’s characterization of his opposition as socialist. And there’s more good news for the President. Just as the DNC chairman declared AOC the future of the Democratic Party, Gallup found that a solid majority of Americans favor capitalism over socialism. The survey showed that the public favors the former over the latter by 56 percent to 40 percent. Little has changed during the last six months. A Fox poll conducted in February found that registered voters favor capitalism by an even wider margin:
Capitalism is far more popular than socialism, according to a Fox News Poll of registered voters.… Fifty-seven percent of voters have a positive opinion of capitalism. That’s more than twice the number who feel the same about socialism (25 percent).… By a 25-point margin, more Republicans (72 percent) than Democrats (47 percent) have a positive view of capitalism.

In other words, despite the overwhelmingly positive press received by the nation’s two most prominent socialists, most voters aren’t sold on it. Even the Democrats favor capitalism over socialism by 47 percent to 38 percent. The left would respond to this inconvenient reality by pointing out the millennial trend toward a positive view of socialism. Recent surveys show that significant pluralities of Americans under the age of 30 have a positive view of socialism. But do these millennials really have any idea what socialism is about? Or are they simply virtue signaling? Lee Edwards at the Heritage Foundation points out the following:
A 2016 Gallup survey found that 55 percent of those 18-29 had a “positive image” of socialism. But 90 percent were favorable to “entrepreneurs” while 78 percent favored “free enterprise.” How can a group be 55 percent socialist and 78 per cent entrepreneurial?Either through cognitive dissonance or plain ignorance.

The answer is the latter, of course. They are told by their professors and the “news” media that blindingly obvious failures of socialism are the result of improper implementation and venal politicians. They are disingenuously encouraged to embrace the belief that socialism is a happy combination of our own welfare state and a nebulous form of “democratic socialism” as it is purportedly practiced in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Denmark. But does this view of socialism or Scandinavia have any connection with reality? The answer, according to University of Georgia professor of economics Jeffrey Dorfman, is “No.”
Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes.… [A]s evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws.… Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.

The reality of socialism is that it has failed miserably everywhere it has been imposed. Poor implementation and venal politicians certainly accelerate these inevitable failures, but that is incidental. Socialism is the economic equivalent of the perpetual motion machine. Countless charlatans have attempted to patent the latter, but they have a 100 percent failure rate because they ignore the laws of physics. Likewise, socialism has a 100 percent failure rate because it ignores the laws of economics. As Mark J. Perry, professor of economics at the University of Michigan and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, succinctly puts it:
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

Market forces can’t be evaded by socialism any more than the laws of physics can be eluded by a perpetual motion machine. There is no evidence that any attempt to do so has ever succeeded in either case. The belief that it is possible to successfully replace capitalism with socialism requires blind faith that can’t be justified by experience or theory. It is merely leftist dogma, and it has failed to learn any new tricks in the last two centuries. A trip to Venezuela will confirm this. By all means, share your findings when you return… if you live.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1781108
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Understanding the appeal of democratic socialism key to defeating it

Postby smix » Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:40 pm

Understanding the appeal of democratic socialism key to defeating it
Orange County Register

URL: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/03/23/u ... eating-it/
Category: Politics
Published: March 25, 2019

Description: In their race to save an unpopular president and their lack of a positive agenda, many Republicans and conservatives increasingly identify the rise of “democratic socialism” as their ultimate, if you will, Trump card. Given the fact that most Americans, particularly older ones, still favor capitalism and are less than enthusiastic about expanding federal power, this approach might work. But conservatives, in or out of the White House, underestimate the intrinsic appeal of the resurgence of neo-Marxism at their own peril. Already more Democrats have a favorable view of socialism than capitalism. Some millennials — soon to be the nation’s largest voting bloc — even see neo-Marxism as “hip” and even “sexy.” These same urban hipsters, as opposed to working class ethnics, elected the left’s political stars like Alexandria Ocosio Cortez. Bizarrely socialism even appeals among the educated young workers so coveted by tech firms. This rise of woke progressivism represents a threat both to the right as well as the super-affluent gentry left.
Ignore socialism’s appeal, at your own peril
I grew up in an atmosphere where socialist ideas were taken seriously. My paternal grandmother was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League, and a strong supporter of Norman Thomas ( my paternal grandfather was a successful dress manufacturer and Republican). My maternal grandfather, a union window washer, spoke openly of the class struggle as if he was still in Russia. Socialism’s appeal stemmed, as it does today, from the failures of capitalism. Until the 1950s, working class people in most industrial countries suffered harsh conditions, crowded into bleak city apartments or isolated in hardscrabble smaller communities. For them, what many conservatives deemed as “socialism” — social security, the GI bill, the New Deal infrastructure program — was seen as helping expand the middle class. The experiences of the working class were very real. My mother was raised in the slums of Brownsville, Brooklyn, and my maternal mother, a seamstress, lived her last years in union housing in that fair borough. Even though most of us were from middle class families, we naturally embraced expanded social democracy, if not of the Norman Thomas variety, certainly that espoused by President Harry Truman, California’s Pat Brown and even President Lyndon Johnson.
A historical perspective
Conservatives often link today’s socialism with the massive failure of the Soviet Union and the Maoist regime in China. And to be sure, some of today’s firebrands have long demonstrated sympathy to dictatorships in Venezuela and Cuba, and for Rep. Ilhan Omar, even a soft spot for anti-Semitic radical Islamists like Hamas. But even the most addled firebrands know they can’t sell third world despotism, much less sharia law, to the average American. Generally our new socialists pitch European welfare states as their model, with much higher taxes and greater regulation of private businesses. The shapers of modern democratic socialism, such as Michael Harrington, whose The Other America, exposed the vast extent of poverty in early 1960s America, favored a similar system but favored decentralization over of the oppressive Soviet regime. Remember this was a time when most northern European economies were stronger than ours. In recent decades, some of these countries, notably Sweden and Germany, have adopted a more free-market approach as a means of reviving their economies.
What’s the matter with the new socialists?
With rampant inequality and shrinking middle class, the case for socialism should be stronger than any time since the Depression; many, if not most Americans, certainly would not object to taxing the uber-wealthy much more. But socialism’s leading messengers, reared in the ideological hot-houses of elite universities, also constitute the wealthiest and whitest of America’s political tribes. Not surprisingly the neo-socialists carry attitudes ill-suited for capitalizing, as did Donald Trump, on the mass middle and working class disaffection. All too often they adopt the intersectional, and sometimes openly anti-American, agenda incubated throughout our culture and educational system. Their obsessions with racial redress, including reparations and open borders, seemed ill-suited to winning over most working class voters, something that more seasoned socialists, like Bernie Sanders, recognize. Worst of all, the much hyped Green New Deal would spell disaster for millions of blue collar workers, as the AFL-CIO recently pointed out, particularly those who work in the construction, energy, transportation, farming and manufacturing industries. The original New Deal, recently excoriated by Ocasio Cortez, was about improving the lives of ordinary Americans, not forcing them to downgrade their ambitions , give up meat, live in small apartments and perhaps not even have children. Having never studied the history of the Soviet Union, the new democratic socialists seem oblivious, unlike Harrington, George Orwell and other 20th century social democrats, about the dangers implicit in the centralization of economic and political power. But it’s not just the ditzy left-wingers who need a history lesson. Those on the right, with all their fulsome defense of capitalism, need to be reminded that free markets need to create increased opportunity as well as the better living conditions. Our increasingly hierarchal, and feudal, capitalism all too often fails this test. My fellow capitalists, please remember that only a broadly inclusive version of capitalism can exorcise the ghost of socialism.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1781108
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

What Is Socialism?

Postby smix » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:45 am

What Is Socialism?
American Thinker

URL: https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... alism.html
Category: Politics
Published: April 14, 2019

Description: The word socialism has been around for quite a while. It would seem that everything should already be transparent with the meaning of this word. Alas, every new generation of troubled hearts constantly refers back to the notion of socialism in an attempt to excavate more sense out of the concept than has already been revealed theoretically, practically, and historically. The modern meaning of socialism often runs along the lines that it is a politico-economic theory in which the means of production, wealth distribution, and exchange are supposed to be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. The above-mentioned characterization of socialism emphasizes its important economic features; however, it cannot be considered a comprehensive definition. The wording implies a narrow understanding of socialism from the point of view of materialist and positivist currents of socialism but does not fully encompass features exhibited in anti-materialist, anti-Cartesian, and Kantian members of the socialist family. What is the purpose of socialism? The great minds of antiquity often dreamed of a community or state that would be the epitome of fairness, justice, and prosperity. Such objectives could be traced to religious texts, folklore, mythology, and the earliest philosophical tractates. The ancient Hellenic philosopher Plato described in his "Politeia" how the essence of the ideal state is "worthy of the gods." He envisioned a perfect society ruled by philosophers who did not have private possessions or families in order to eliminate any temptations from personal enrichment and distraction from public affairs. In his imaginary state, it is not the individual who has the real value, but the human society; thus, he advocated for complete subordination of the individual to the collective. The latter condition is nothing more than the collectivization of consciousness. Plato crystallized a picture of the fair and harmonized human society, which had not been and could not be created by societal evolution, thus it had to be built according to a predetermined plan. This plan included such measures as abolishing private property, collectivizing individuals, governing through elites, and raising the moral foundations of society. Remarkably, many generations of prominent socialists, including Karl Marx himself, recognized Plato's description as the genuine socialistic society and entertained ideas of incorporating some of his provisions, including the most controversial ones, into their own theoretical works. Since Plato's celebrated work, the development of socialist thoughts has revolved around two main subjects of socialization: private property and consciousness. The materialist camp of socialists builds its theoretical provisions on the idea of the elimination of private ownership of the means of production, creating instead socialized property on the level of the whole community or a significant part of it. For example, guild socialists sought to collectivize factories and plants to work for the benefit of the individual guilds. Social Democrats preferred to subdue a significant chunk of private property to the state directly or indirectly throughout the wealth redistribution schemes and regulations. Communists stand on the position of complete expropriation of private property in favor of the state. The representatives of anti-materialistic, anti-positivist socialism, such as Italian fascists and National Socialists of the Third Reich, closely followed Plato's way of reasoning and directed his activity on the socialization of individual — i.e., the subordination of the individual to the collective. They also appreciate the notion of elites' governing people as Plato envisioned. Communists, likewise, had their say on the issue of the collectivization of individuals. They suggested that the process of the socialization of means of production and wealth redistribution would be performed under the supervision of the proletarian dictatorship, and communal ownership of the material wealth would lead eventually to the collectivization of consciousness. Different degrees and subjects of socialization in conjunction with various methods of governing and wealth distribution have created a multitude of socialist currents. Thus, anarchists stand for a minimal scale of the economic planning that occurs sporadically between voluntary associations of toilers. Communists insist on comprehensive government planning at the global level. The rest of the socialist currents fall between these two extremes. The problem of wealth distribution is one of the central themes of socialism. After all, socialization was thought of as a means for achieving an ultimate goal: a fair wealth distribution among people. Thus, some currents of socialism stand for an equal wealth distribution among people. Communists propose, as the end goal, distribution according to any needs; Social Democrats correlate distribution with a personal labor contribution but introduce various equalizing policies. Thus, we are ready to unveil the general notion of socialism. Socialism is a set of artificial socio-economic systems that embody a lofty aspiration of people to achieve a just and prosperous society, which is characterized by a degree of socialization of property and consciousness, scales of economic planning, and wealth redistribution and imposed onto the community by the revolutionary or governmental elites without the consent of the population. One can object that sometimes, socialists gain power through the democratic election procedure. Unfortunately, as a rule, the masses have no idea what they are voting for in a sense that socialist policies lead to entirely opposite results of the ones proclaimed. People react to the populist and emotional appeal of socialist slogans. Therefore, people's consent is not genuine, but is manipulated by the skilled politicians of the Left. A precise description of any theoretical or institutionalized socialist ideology can be derived from the general definition because it incorporates the most important, distinctive factors of envisioned societies. Indeed, if we dial the knobs of the "socialization of property and consciousness, scale of economic planning, and wealth redistribution" to their maximum values, we will arrive at the essence of communism. That is: Communism is a man-made socio-economic system that embodies a lofty aspiration of people to achieve a just and prosperous society. It suggests a full socialization of private property, complete collectivization of consciousness, worldwide economic planning, and wealth redistribution according to any needs and imposed onto the community by the revolutionaries without the consent of the population. The generalized definition emphasizes the main paths to socialism that have been known since antiquity. Regardless of peculiarities of different flavors of socialism and an intraspecific struggle among various socialist currents, all of them are artificial creations that run contrary to the evolutionary process of societal development. Indeed, history shows that socialism has not occurred naturally, but instead was forced upon society by revolutionary elements. The implementation of socialistic ideas of different kinds by various nations has falsified the concept of socialism. Unfortunately, social experiments were conducted on living, unsuspecting people, accompanied by death and suffering of millions of innocent souls. Notwithstanding, unbridled maximalists negate numerous facts of the failed implementation of the socialist idea by the previous generations. They put the burden of the failures on the careless implementers of the past rather than on the futility of the undertaking because of the fallacy of the idea itself. The truth is, socialism is the dead end of the evolution of humanity. It has to be avoided at all costs.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1781108
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Politics


Mobile Device
  • 1
  • FREE CLASSIFIED ADS
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement