A lesson some people never learn.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/venezuela-economic-collapse-socialism-always-fails/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/venezuela-economic-collapse-socialism-always-fails/
The Truth About Socialism
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Great article. Here's another recent one about our left and socialism.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...inous-sign-for-the-party-and-for-the-country/
https://www.investors.com/politics/...inous-sign-for-the-party-and-for-the-country/
There are different types of socialism. Bernie Sanders and his movement is different from Venezuela. As I stated on the other thread, Sanders is a social democrat. He calls himself a democratic socialist, but he really is a social democrat. Even democratic socialists though are different from other types of socialists. Many who are following Sanders lead are also social democrats, while some are closer to being true democratic socialists. Sanders has more in common with European leftists, like the UK Labour Party.
Sanders also points to the Nordic model as a representation of what he believes in.
https://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11133896/bernie-sanders-denmark
Compare what Sanders advocates for to this video from 1944...
You are deluding yourself. No matter what “branch” of socialism there has been it has always ended in famine, murder, tyranny. That’s the lesson Williamson is trying to convey. As he said: no ideology can be that unlucky. Tyranny is cooked into socialism’s DNA. To pretend otherwise is very dangerous.
That is just not true Ponca. Did Labour Party leadership in England end in famine, murder, and tyranny? Did Clement Attlee, for example, lead England into famine, murder, and tyranny? Has the Nordic model resulted in famine, murder, and tyranny?
Many called Franklin Roosevelt a socialist (Sanders loves FDR). Did he lead the USA into famine, murder, and tyranny?
Oh here we go, Nordic model. Even they’ll tell you they aren’t a socialist model.
They have a free market who’s productivity and distribution are not governed by the state with a strong safety net is taxation.
Welfare, unemployment, low income housing, roads, etc are not socialist.
Yes, social democracy. Which is what Sanders embraces.
http://theweek.com/articles/726093/bernie-sanders-rise-american-social-democracy
Again, it is not accurate to compare Sanders to Venezula. Sanders champions the Nordic model.
Death by 4 inch blade is far superior to death by 6 inch blade. Big difference. Yuge.
Some Swedes are now starting to question their welfare state.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/2018/06/26/now-even-swedes-are-questioning-the-welfare-state
Socialism regardless of the iteration is a loser.
Many are also questioning their orgasmic promotion of immigration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/swedens-far-eyes-election-gains-gang-violence-rises-103944818.html
Wasn't but a year or two ago, that media and Swedish government officials went on the offensive to deny reports of the increase in crime in the once gentle socialist country. Now, they use the obligatory "far-right" label to denounce those who are sounding the alarm since their denials of criminal activity have been debunked.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/2018/06/26/now-even-swedes-are-questioning-the-welfare-state
Socialism regardless of the iteration is a loser.
Many are also questioning their orgasmic promotion of immigration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/swedens-far-eyes-election-gains-gang-violence-rises-103944818.html
Wasn't but a year or two ago, that media and Swedish government officials went on the offensive to deny reports of the increase in crime in the once gentle socialist country. Now, they use the obligatory "far-right" label to denounce those who are sounding the alarm since their denials of criminal activity have been debunked.
Is that before or after Bernie was doting on the Venezuelan model?
Yes, there are critics in those country who don't like the Nordic model. Always have been.
I'll present my argument, 2cents. It's cobbled from Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and "Fatal Conceit," but I will probably mangle it, so I don't want to give him credit.
The state is that agency within a society that is granted the use of violence, or the threat thereof. We are taught that people are unable and/or unwilling to govern themselves, and, thus, it is necessary for an organization to be formed that will keep everyone in line. It is the nature of the state to seek power. It views itself as the last line of defense against utter chaos, and needs institutional control to prevent all hell from breaking loose. No matter how small or benign a state may be, it is in its nature to seek more power, to grow as fast as it can, using any means it can find. Give any state enough time and it will eventually turn into a tyrannical monster. It may take longer for a small government to reach tyrannical status, but give it time and it will achieve its ultimate goal. Look at today's America, for example. Do you suppose our Founders would recognize what our government has become? Well, Alexander Hamilton maybe. (As an aside, one of the more common methods the state uses to gain power is to declare an issue an emergency, a crisis, and persuade people it is the only institution that can quell the crisis. The war on poverty, for example. The economic historian Robert Higgs has written a marvelous book, "Crisis and Leviathan," which I would highly recommend to anyone that is interested.)
Socialism is an ideology that clamors for a highly developed state. It believes that a small sector of society can scientifically control the means of production, and generate wealth, health and economic stability for a society. What Hayek shows is this dream is impossible, it's a conceit that is fatal to any society that tries it. As history has shown over and over again. What makes it impossible? A lack of knowledge. There is no way one person, or a cadre of intellectuals can possess the knowledge to steer an economy. These are too many factors in play. No matter how well intentioned the intellectual cadre may be they cannot possibly know enough. Society is an amorphous thing, comprised of billions of elements that drive hundreds of millions of consumer choices, choices that can change on a dime. The government agency may run studies, countless studies and determine the studies show the people want product X. All the studies say so. So the agency directs industry to stop what it's doing and go into production of product X. But as soon as product X hits the streets the public has already moved on, and now demands product Y. The only economic system that can handle the multitudes of choices the public seeks is the free market. Socialism is doomed from the beginning.
And so what do the socialists do? The really decent intellectuals that have nothing but the people's best interest at heart? Do they recognize their error and say maybe we should step back and give freedom a chance? No, instead they double down, proclaim the only reason their plans failed is because they didn't have enough power to implement it. And when the new plan fails - as it always does because it is an unrealistic idea - they demand more power. Right down the line to serfdom.
Socialism is a horrid, putrid, anti-freedom ideology. It should be rejected by one and all. As I said it would bring 1000 times more ruin on this nation than open borders if it is implemented
I understand your opposition to "socialism" especially considering that you are a libertarian.
But you can admit that there are different types of socialism, correct? And I would hope you realize that not everyone who is a social democrat or even a democratic socialist is going to lead a nation to famine, murder, and tyranny.
Yes I admit there are different models of socialism. I maintain that is not relevant. No matter what are the aims of the socialist, no matter how well intentioned, socialism by its very nature ultimately becomes a murderous rule by a small sector that has grabbed control of the apparatus. Can you admit that? Do you admit that Bernie Sanders was promoting the glories of Venezuela under Chavez? Once that wonderful benign government began to show cracks he switched his rhetoric to "the Nordic model?"
No, I can't admit that because it isn't true. Again, I will direct you to the previous examples I have given that did not lead to a murderous rule by a small sector.
It is very relevant the type of socialism one embraces. It is also very relevant if one is a social democrat.
Again, I would direct you to the link I provided in response to this common talking point from the right.
With all of that said, I am glad you can at least admit there are different models of socialism. That is a start. I realize you are going to oppose any form of socialism due to your own political ideology, but I would encourage you to look at the many examples of those who embraced some form of socialism or social democracy and see how it didn't lead to some murderous rule.
So predictable...
"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america
Did you read the article? It addresses this quote you gave, which has made its rounds on the conversative blogs/websites.
Like I said, you are predictable Medic when it comes to repeating what is on those sites.
I did well before you posted it. It appears on Bernie's site, the link I provided, so it's his to own whether you like it or not. That's the way "racists" work with Trump, right? The same rules apply to Bernie and socialism.
Good then. That means you at least know the whole story (By: Valley News Editorial Board) even though you will continue to ignore it.
This is what frustrates me about you, 2cents. You know the historical story of socialism and yet you refuse to acknowledge it. You want so badly for socialism to be a good thing you will ignore the repeated abuses the ideology practices. Sanders praised Chavez, but now he and his people have spun it where he did not. That's good enough for you. Of all the people on this board you seem to be the most open minded about listening to opposing viewpoints. You should expand your viewpoint on this topic. Socialism and freedom are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. You have to know that. In your heart you have to know that.
It's curious that the lefties use Nazi to describe Trump when the definition of Nazi is National Socialist Workers Party. The reality is the term Nazi better describes a large segment of liberals and democrats.
The call to arms by Maxine Waters and many others to go on the offensive against members of the administration and anyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs is no different than Hitler and the Brownshirts. Those democrats who support these tactics and remain silent are the equivalent of German citizens of the 30s-40s who sat idly by while Hitler wreaked havoc across Europe.
Joseph Goebbels would be proud of Maxine and others of her ilk.
The call to arms by Maxine Waters and many others to go on the offensive against members of the administration and anyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs is no different than Hitler and the Brownshirts. Those democrats who support these tactics and remain silent are the equivalent of German citizens of the 30s-40s who sat idly by while Hitler wreaked havoc across Europe.
Joseph Goebbels would be proud of Maxine and others of her ilk.
Socialism is bad. US became a powerhouse country because of capitalism.
/thread
/thread
When did I post that I want socialism to be a good thing? I posted on the other thread that I have some concerns about Sanders and those aligned with him.
All I am saying Ponca is that there are different types of socialism and it is false to claim that someone who embraces democratic socialism or social democracy is automatically going to lead their country to famine, murder, and tyranny.
No, the Valley News Editorial Board mentioned Chavez in an editorial. Yes, Sanders shared the editorial because of its dicussion about economic inequalities.
What I see on this thread is a lot of rehashing of common talking points from the right about Sanders and socialism. I see very little desire to have a reasonable conversation about this topic from a non-partisan perspective.
It all depends on what you mean by the term "socialism" and "freedom." And that is why I note the differences within socialism.
Bernie is the company he keeps. Why would I ignore that? That editorial appeared (and still appears) on Bernie's official website in the "must read" section. If he didn't and doesn't agree with it, it shouldn't have been posted on his site and certainly shouldn't still be there.
BTW, I voted for Bernie in the primaries for one simple reason. Even though he says he's always been pro gun control, he's voted according to the population he represents in the past. He lost my respect when he tried to weasel his way out of his previous votes because Clinton used his record against him. He proved he's just like the rest of the career politicians.
lol, talk about twisting history.
Nazism was a far-right ideology. Extreme nationalism and anti-egalitarian. Facism.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
I've got to get to work. Going on the road today. I love the comments in your last section. That's exactly what Williamson was talking about, the differing definitions are what keep people apart.
I am sure he agrees with the discussion of economic inequalities within the article. However, the use of that article by some on the right to disparage Sanders politically has often been inaccuate.
At one point, some claim he actually wrote the article lol.
Yes, he is a politician. Just like the rest of them.
Right political ideals in America are founded in small government and free market capitalism.
Nazi doctrine centers on Nationalist/government owned industry and a parental state.
If you are American, Nazism is about as far from a right-wing political ideology as you can get.
Yes, that is why Nazism is referred to as a "far-right" or "extreme-right" ideology.
btw, I prefer looking at the political spectrum in a manner such as this:
Last edited:
Yes, that is why Nazism is referred to as a "far-right" or "extreme-right" ideology.
btw, I prefer looking at the political spectrum in a manner such as this:
You prefer this political spectrum that is vague about it or the first one you posted which clearly shows Nazi ideology being left-leaning in American politics?
Yes, that is why Nazism is referred to as a "far-right" or "extreme-right" ideology.
btw, I prefer looking at the political spectrum in a manner such as this:
Not surprising that you prefer a flat earth square to explain political ideologies. It’s a sphere.
The one that is posted, and the first one, both indicate that Nazi economic and political leanings are far left and not right wing
No, they were not "far left." As the other image I shared illustrates.
Plus, using the "far left" or "far right" language brings one back to a straight line spectrum.
I gave a different spectrum from a straight line spectrum. However, I have no problem discussing the traditional straight line spectrum if that is what people want to use.
