Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Workers of the world, unite?
If the president of the United States, his political party, and labor unions don't want to be tainted with Socialism, they might want to stop citing Marxist slogans and advocating a Leninist and Stalinist view of government and private property.
But maybe there is no way to do this without selling out their own philosophy.
Why do Socialists/Communists/Marxists always think it can work here and will never end up being a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that results in not only a loss of liberty, but poverty for all? Look at Marxist track record. Why do American Socialists they think American Socialism will not end up the same way as it has in the former USSR, its former satellites, Cuba, and North Korea? The only reasons China and Vietnam are becoming prosperous is because they are moving away from collectivist economics and moving in the direction of free markets and private property.
Don't these people read? Do they have eyes in their heads?
Is this guy an ignorant fool or a corrupt liar? He has to be one or the other. And if either is true, should the president of the United States be so interested in him?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think that Obama, and many of the people behind his continuing campaign and administration, are largely naive and overly idealistic, which I think is their fatal flaw.
But let me ask you this--what would you rather want, for them to succeed or for them to fail? I think you've laid out a pretty good idea of how all of these increasingly left-wing initiatives will not work in a capitalist government such as the US...but perhaps that's a good thing.
Dear Ariel:
If "succeed" means to grow the government, raise taxes, increase dependency on the bureaucracy (not to mention destroy the dollar and increase burdensome regulations), and the cultivation of a nanny-state, I do hope this current government fails. I hope the people find some way to repudiate this ideology and replace it with what the Constitution established.
It's kind of like speaking of a "successful assassination." It's a success from the point of the view of a hit-man, but no so much for the victim. ;-)
I don't know where such initiatives are ever ultimately successful. Socialism can be more benign than that of the USSR - such as in Canada or Sweden. But even in those places, government ultimately gets involved in the free practice of speech and religion, and also must enforce high levels of confiscatory and invasive taxation that destroy incentive and eat up the wealth of the people.
And I agree with you 100% that there is a lot of naivety out there. On its surface, taking from the rich to give to the poor sounds great - unless it is your ox being gored, then it isn't so good. And then there are those pesky unintended consequences, like discouraging the very entrepreneurship that creates wealth and jobs in the first place! Not to mention creating a state with the centralized power to pull this off is never good for individual freedom.
Thanks for writing!
Communism wasn't that bad for the people on the top of the heap -- and the policies helped to keep them there.
Why do you think leaders are thinking beyond what is good for them and their own power?
Dear Eric:
Often, this is the case. In Marxism, the rich few get richer and the poor many get poorer - all the ideology notwithstanding. Power is a drug.
However, it doesn't always end well for tyrants.
"We must train people who will dedicate to the revolution not a free evening but the whole of their lives." Comrade Lenin
Father Hollywood:
I am a "Constitutionalist" and agree fully with your statement to Ariel.
How about that!
Blessings!
Theophilus
Want to know how well it's working for Venezuela?
http://jungle-hut.blogspot.com/2009/11/power-outages.html
Post a Comment