Chavez to rule by decree

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You won't find it. Socialism is a con job. It promises everything and delivers nothing. The one thing that promoters of socialism can't seem to get is that there is this thing called "human nature". Incentive is a part of human nature. When you operate with a system that virtually kills incentive to produce, you ultimately end up with less for everyone. And when you end up with less, your system looks crappy. That's when the political oppression begins in these little crackpot socialist dictatorships. The big problem is Socialists think that people are either robots or can be made to function like an ant colony. I'm actually hoping the "enlightened" ones will finally see Socialism as the con job that it is. Karl Marx was a bum who was not a net producer in his own society. So of course he would write about the wonders of "collectivism". Geesh. It ain't so hard to see the con job.

So what you are saying is the only people who want socialism are those who either can't or won't give back, by productivity, to that society?

[XabbaRus]

This is going slightly OT but why is it when ever anyone says that having a free National Health Care system is a good idea they are suddenly a socialist or communist. Geez even your most committed Tory in Britain likes the fact we have an NHS no matter how imperfect. It's one of those things once you have lost it it is impossible to get back.

Health care free in Canada? I heard you still have to pay up front but you get it back later.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by waste gate

So what you are saying is the only people who want socialism are those who either can't or won't give back, by productivity, to that society?

Absolutely not. There are a couple people I've worked with who believe in this stuff like it's a religion. Both net producers of society. I think they had a general "fear of envy" thing going on though. But if you look at the life of Karl Marx, he was not a net producer at all. He was a "philosopher" "poet" "essayist" "political economist". Don't get me wrong. I think poets and essayists are important parts of a nation's culture. However it's not a field that produces much in terms of a nation's capital. I'm just saying it's so easy to see the fraud perpetrated by Marx. It's unfortunate that it has endured and the pursuit of it has destroyed so many lives.

[CCIP]

I would claim that rampant capitalism under democratic regimes destroyed just as many if not more... It works decently well when stabilized and restrained by law, and more importantly - guarded by a strong and numerous middle class, but it is a huge problem for societies where the economy is grasped by a relatively small elite, which is where it becomes as bad if not worse than a socialist dictatorship. Unfortunately I'm seeing this concentration tendency even in the West now... No wonder there are Eastern Europeans who look back to the communist regimes - it's not the government system, it's the relative socioeconomic stability (everyone being near-equally ********ed is a way of stabilizing things, of course). Nor is it any wonder that there are nations with huge empoverished majorities who have little affinity for liberal democracy as well.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by CCIP

I would claim that rampant capitalism under democratic regimes destroyed just as many if not more... It works decently well when stabilized and restrained by law, and more importantly - guarded by a strong and numerous middle class, but it is a huge problem for societies where the economy is grasped by a relatively small elite, which is where it becomes as bad if not worse than a socialist dictatorship. Unfortunately I'm seeing this concentration tendency even in the West now... No wonder there are Eastern Europeans who look back to the communist regimes - it's not the government system, it's the relative socioeconomic stability (everyone being near-equally ********ed is a way of stabilizing things, of course). Nor is it any wonder that there are nations with huge empoverished majorities who have little affinity for liberal democracy as well.

Hogwash. All of it. Capitalism has always given and created more opportunity than any other type of society in existence. Not only that, we have enjoyed a higher standard of living as well. Capitalism w/Democracy has not destroyed or politically repressed like those nations that have sought Socialism/Communism in the 20th Century. I think the count is at 100 million in the 20th Century dead by regimes grasping for the Socialist utopia. The problem that you see is that not everyone is guaranteed an equal outcome. But you fail to see that in a free and capitalistic society, there is a freedom to pursue. There is a freedom to invest. There is a freedom to become rather than be directed. This is what drives human nature. You are never going to be assured that everyone has everything on an equal footing. That's OK. As long as there is an opportunity for everyone to succeed. And right now, that exists. Well at least in the USA.

Those empoverished nations you talk about are ones who are not embracing capitalism as a basis for economic development or growth. As long as you pursue equal outcomes as a substitute for equal opportunity, you're screwed. Sorry, but I don't want to be equally miserable as everyone else. Let me be free and allow me to invest, innovate, and produce. The problem with the socialist is that they believe innovation/investment success is something to be punished because it doesn't guarantee equal outcomes. Do you see a flaw in punishing success CCIP for a nation to grow? Especially to make everyone equally f**ked as you say? I sure do. This is why Socialism is doomed. And will always be doomed. It is a con job that goes against the interests of human nature. Nothing anybody can do to change it. Human beings are neither robots or ants.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Absolutely not. There are a couple people I've worked with who believe in this stuff like it's a religion. Both net producers of society. I think they had a general "fear of envy" thing going on though. But if you look at the life of Karl Marx, he was not a net producer at all. He was a "philosopher" "poet" "essayist" "political economist". Don't get me wrong. I think poets and essayists are important parts of a nation's culture. However it's not a field that produces much in terms of a nation's capital. I'm just saying it's so easy to see the fraud perpetrated by Marx. It's unfortunate that it has endured and the pursuit of it has destroyed so many lives.

Don't back off your position. You are correct. It has been my experience that the only people who want socialism are those who either can't or won't give back.
Those who proclaim they are 'for the peolple' are those who's wealth give them a standing which makes them emune to the uphevel they advocate. As example, I give you the Barbara Streisands of the world.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Don't back off your position. You are correct. It has been my experience that the only people who want socialism are those who either can't or won't give back.
Those who proclaim they are 'for the peolple' are those who's wealth give them a standing which makes them emune to the uphevel they advocate. As example, I give you the Barbara Streisands of the world.

I hear you. But I'm not backing off my position that socialism is a con job that was derived from a bum (Karl Marx) that was not a net producer of his society. You are correct that "collectivism" is heralded largely by those who don't give or produce for society. But I think the other motivator is some sort of a "fear of envy" or elitism by those who have produced wealth like the Barbara Streisands of the world. At any rate, it's nothing but a giant scam.