The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organization that aims to promote global economic growth and financial stability, encourage international trade, and reduce poverty." - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/imf.asp

But.....

"Venezuela, the South American country convulsed by economic and humanitarian catastrophe, has defaulted on some of its debt after missing an interest payment due in October.
"Even as investors meet in Caracas to discuss restructuring US$60 billion in foreign debt, the country is in urgent need of international financial assistance.
"Yet few nations are rushing in to offer financial assistance to the ailing country. Under the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela is isolated in Latin America, and the United States, Canada and the European Union have all imposed sanctions against Venezuelan officials. -

http://todayvenezuela.com/2017/11/15/nobody-is-going-to-bail-out-venezuela/


If that doesn't tell you the IMF is capitalist, review its member list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund

 

It consists of 189 states. It's not capitalist. It's statist.

 

By ignoring the report and going with the government line? Careful, be careful! Government will love you.

 

LOL - C'mon now, don't be shy. You came up with that priceless pearl of idiocy yourself. Go ahead and take a bow.

Obviously, you feel the same way.

Actually, the goal of socialism is power and control, and it's proponents aren't interested in quaint little things like liberty, justice and equality of opportunity. I'm willing to concede that it is the opposite of individualism, however.

Actually, it does not mean it has to be in accordance with our laws and our Constitution as the Democratic Republic that we are. In fact, it's quite inconsistent with all of those things as the gentleman in my signature so inconveniently pointed out. It is, however, a comforting lie.

Our government has always been given certain tasks to perform, but I don't know that this means "we have always had socialism in this country". As for our current government and things like the public school system and our welfare programs there's a legitimate argument to be made that they're socialist.

We defined none of those things, most particularly socialism. The proto-socialists in Europe from Gerrard Winstanley to François-Noël Babeuf defined that.

No, they're not, and let's see what the Founders and Framers had to say about the General Welfare Clause:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
--James Madison (in a letter to James Robertson)

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Thomas Jefferson

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended."
- Alexander Hamilton

True, and they're why we are not a socialist country.

Again, you would be wrong. The Constitution does not contain a "healthy dose" of socialism.

Obviously, it's you who needs to find a new talking point.

Just as obviously, you need to be reminded that you don't speak for the Right as a whole or individual conservatives and libertarians in specific. We're quite capable of doing that for ourselves, and if you stopped to listen instead of pretending to speak for us you'd find that your silly idea of what we consider the real horror or horrors of socialism is completely divorced from what we actually think.

 

Well.... not exactly the same, but very similar. I do think that all those ideologies exist. And that they are all useful, depending on the circumstances. But the problem arises when they are combined with authoritarianism. And I include the ideologues who demand "purity" in the ideology. To me, it's a form of authoritarianism.

And I do mean that they are all useful. I remember one of those right-wing talking heads on the radio (I keep thinking "Niels Boht", butobviously that's the physicist, so his name escapes me). This one at the time of the bail-out. He retired years ago. But at the time he was saying that it wasn't capitalism, it wasn't socialism... it's outright fascism. And I couldn't help but agree with him. It was fascism. But it was necessary. It was a horrendous thing to do: bailing out the banks which had created the financial crisis. But if they hadn't bailed them out, our whole financial system could have crumbled. So even fascism proved to be a useful tool in one very specific point in history and to solve one specific problem.

I really do think that all ideologies have something to contribute to the "overall" picture. Just keep authoritarianism out. And, for heaven's sake, keep ideologues out of the picture. We just need to always keep an open mind and we'll be fine.

 

Venezuela is not Socialism. Venezuela is an experiment in crazy populism run amok. In which the President of the nation took money that was not legally appropriated, and used it as a political tool (sound familiar yet?). That President also disparaged all criticism and impeded the exercise of freedom of press (now does it sound familiar?). This President took power that legally belonged to Congress and used it as political propaganda by funding what he had promised his base in the political campaign (if it still doesn't sound familiar, tell me how is life in Congo... or wherever you live?)

I'll give you a hint: it's Trump! And unless you believe that Trump is a socialist, you will have guessed that Venezuela is not a Socialist country. It's the playground of a self-centered dictator. Like Trump!

 

Are you kidding me?

 

Nope. I gave examples of equal opportunity

 

Nope. Your describing a system in which states contribute funds to a pool through a quota system from which states experiencing balance of payments problems can borrow money as capitalist?

 

All lies. I find it sad that conservatives have to stoop to such depths & attack humane ideologies as if they were monsters, just because they have a different opinion. That dishonors individualism, democracy, freedom, and this nation. Shame!

 

Leave it up to an elitist to dole out such arrogant accusations. Guess it implies you are the "mature" one. I'll leave you to your delusion. Lofty language does not impress.

 

Affirmative action is rewarding individuals due to their skin color. MLK never called for that! Guess you are for reparations too. Does that apply to recent immigrants with black skin tone?.....or just slaves?? I don't know anyone alive who has been a slave in America. (Aside from sex slaves brought up through our open border) Would Obama get just 50% of reparations since he is only half black?? Guess we'll need a leftist elitist to figure this all out for us. Oh wait! The Democrat Party has about 14 of them at last count that want to do that!! <Trolling>

 

Thanks. Comes from listening to Rush and Hannity once in a while. It's really not difficult to fool audiences like theirs if you lack the scruples to later make it clear that it's not real.

As a matter of fact, I do feel it's easier to attack the idiocies that right wingnuts make up.

I don't need you to repeat Limbaugh/Hannity talking points. I know them by heart. It doesn't matter if they come from you or from them. Power and control are characteristics of authoritarian regimes. If you can quote a single one of the American Socialists proclaiming that, you might have an argument. But repeating it just because radio's two most prominent dumb-dumbs say it does not make you look wise at all.

Believe it or not, that usually gets you in jail or impeached. And Democratic voters aren't as forgiving as the Trump cult.

One question, am I going to suffer through this whole long post without you making a single point?

Ok. What do you know? I wish you got to something. Some substance is always appreciated.

Doesn't matter who defined it. We shaped it. We invented the government for the people and by the people. Not by an individual. Not by a monarch. Not for the individual. Not for those who are loyal to the king. But for the whole of society. Pure socialism..

So? Any point on your end? No? .... Maybe later?

Wow! For a second there, I thought you were finally going to make a point. But... alas!

I have no idea what it is you think you are rebutting with any of those quotes. Since you don't even indicate what it is, I doubt even youi know what it was you were attempting to rebut.

Try again!

BTW, when you do, keep in mind one thing. And this is a general statement. Not necessarily related to this particular claim. What the frameers said or wrote is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they approved. When you approve something, all those who vote have to be convinced. When you write or say something, you're the only one who needs to be convinced.

I will now skip all your "no it doesn't" type nonsense with no accompanying arguments . Because that only underlines how ill-prepared you were to respond to this post. Let's see if there is any substance.

I wouldn't know what you're actually thinking. Given that this post has absolutely no substance.

And I have not for a second spoken for the right. This is obvious projection, given that in your whole post you are pretending to speak for socialists. When I quote somebody from the right, I will provide a quote. You claimed again and again to know what socialists believe, and provided ZERO quotes.

 

Yes.

But it doesn't even matter if you don't consider it as such. Point is that their crimes are committed in the name of preserving capitalism.

 

Actually in the name of statism. States are committing the crimes.

 

That's the pre-packaged wingnut radio talking point. Not reality though. But it's off-topic. The poster just wanted examples.

 

They are committing the crimes in the name of preserving capitalism in the world. That's what the IMF is for.

 

And @yabberefugee has pointed out that that particular example was not an example of equal opportunity. It is rewarding individuals do to the color of their skin.

 

Not capitalism. Statism. The goal of states is to preserve statism.

 

Well. That means they need to read up on what affirmative action means.

I'm not trying to convince Republicans that each one of those represents equal opportunities. I'm just giving examples. Which was the request.

 

The policy of promoting the education and employment of members of groups that are known to have previously suffered from discrimination. And how does the state go about doing this promoting?

 

To preserve capitalist states capitalist.

 

States aren't capitalist. It violates the definition.

Capitalism: When the means of production are privately owned.

 

Any way they can.

 

Legislation promoting some individuals over others. That doesn't sound like equal opportunity.