The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

I suppose it depends upon how the workers come to own said enterprise, doesn't it?

 

Ah! A bumper sticker. A favorite by the right because, since bumper stickers have no real content, they require no intellectual effort.

 

Oh. You want specific names? Well, since you insist (and only because you insist) that would obviously include you, given this last sentence.

But I must clarify: my statement does not in of itself imply that the talking points of the aforementioned uneducated wingnut shock-jocks are false. I'm just saying that they are repeated mindlessly without even an attempt at making a rational case to defend them. This is what the Limbaugh/Hannity echo-chamber teaches their users: to blurt out a series of bumper stickers.... they even teach them how to make up their own.... The bumper-stickers don't mean anything.... but they spare them the mental effort of engaging in an actual intellectual debate of ideas and objective facts

 

Real is real, no matter where you find it.

 

You don't get the point. It doesn't matter how "real" it is. If you use a bumper sticker to avoid the mental effort of an intellectual debate, you are only fooling yourself.

This is why bumper-stickers are such favorites on the right. Even a dope can peel and stick a bumper sticker on their car. And nobody is going to stop you in the street and ask you to intellectually defend it.. On the other hand, not everybody can properly defend the underlying idea in a Political Forum. But, sooner or later, you will; be called out. And this is your day of reckoning, buddy.

Are you up to it? Something tells e you're still years from getting there....

 

Bumper sticker or just stating the obvious, the statements are true and can’t be logically refuted. But they can be blunted by the intellectually dishonest by using smear tactics to control those who fear the displeasure and ostracization of society.

Intellectual effort:

Now, the whole point of conceptual thought is to bring the complex down to the understandable. For example, I tell someone, “Take an umbrella, it’s going to rain”. It’s simple, and I don’t need to give the person an education in manufacturing, climatology and geography. I don’t need to explain any of it. They grab and umbrella or get wet.

Furthermore:

What socialism is: tribalism and human sacrifices.
What socialism gave birth to: Old world tribal wars, WW I, the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin, USSR, the murder of the Romanov’s, Gulags, Stalin, the slaughter of the Kulaks, KGB, WW II, My Testimony
by Anatoly Marchenko, Black Nights, White Snow by Harrison Salisbury.

Simply put: Socialism creates loads and loads of misery.

 

And just how much intellectual debate is needed to cover and hush up the past atrocities perpetrated, and to this day, perpetuated, by the socialists and their ilk? And if reality doesn't matter, then what's the point of the debate?

 

Your call for intellectual debate is nothing but a socialist's subterfuge to sabotage the salient: Socialism slaughters; capitalism creates.
Yeah. It's a bumper sticker, just like "Don't eat the yellow snow", and yet, it's just as true.

 

Exactly! Any time you see anything that cannot possibly be logically refuted, you know you are seeing religious dogma. Because the only thing that cannot be logically refuted is religion. And for that reason we can't know if it's a fact or not. If you are one of the "faithful" you accept it as "Truth" (capital T). If you are not, you don't. But there is no room for intellectual debate. A well-reasoned argument, in any field (except religion) always leaves room for debate. This characteristic is known in Epistemology as "falsifiability". So dogma is the perfect hiding place for the intellectually lazy. And it's what conforms the large majority of Hannity, Limbaugh and their echo-chamber's poorly educated audience.

Compare that to the OP. It can be refuted. You would need strong counter-arguments, however. And you have provided none. But if you can't refute it, you must accept it. At least temporarily. Until you can come up with an alternative explanation which is, at least, equally reasoned. A bumper-sticker you heard on wingnut media will not do.

I'm sure you don't get it. But save this post. Maybe in a few years... who knows... maybe you'll think back and you will

 

Socialism is the subordination of the individual to the well-being of society as determined by its leaders, whether those leaders are the mob, the chosen, the divine, or the tyrant.
Capitalism is the subordination of the society to the rule of law to protect the rights of the individual.

In practical reality:
Socialism: Mao slaughters the peasants in order to bring China into the modern age so as to benefit society as a whole. (60 million murdered)
Capitalism: Steve Jobs invents the iPhone and lifts everybody's living standard. (Over 1 billion lives improved)

Conclusion, Mao created streams of blood and screams of horror; Jobs created streams of revenue and screams of delight.

Not a hard choice; Give me Steve, and to hell with Mao.

 

Really? Well, refute this: The atomic weight of an element depends on the abundance of its isotopes.

 

And you are doomed to never know if you missed out on a delicious lemon syrup snow-cone.

But only those of us who prefer knowledge to intellectual laziness would care, anyway.

 

Nothing but a sophisticant's slipshod, sophistic, syllogism.

 

According to whom or what principle?

Your post is what the socialists have whined since 1917. How many cemeteries have to be filled before you're convinced that the principles of socialism result in the annihilation of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? 100 million dead is not enough?

It is reprehensible and sickening that after the Soviet Union, after Tiananmen Square, after Mao's Cultural Revolution, after Pol Pot's killing fields, after every human atrocity known to man, that there are human souls who still seek to institute this horror upon civilized man.

 

Clever sophistry, except to the enlightened.

 

And who is going to decide who gets what from whom, and when? We know the why: For the good of society.

 

​

And did you miss this?
Socialism is the subordination of the individual to the well-being of society as determined by its leaders, whether those leaders are the mob, the chosen, the divine, or the tyrant.

Furthermore, in any gang, collective, tribe, group, someone is making the final decisions--power deplores a vacuum; someone will rise to be the Atilla the Hun.

BTW: If socialism is so God awful good, why does it need physical force to enshrine it?

Now if reality is real, if language is conceptual, if morality is moral, then socialism is a psychopathic slacker's dream, and the creative mind's nightmare.

 

And if socialism is so GD great, what was up with the frigging Berlin Wall? Does reality and morality have any meaning at all to progressives? Reality says no.

 

Yes, it's very relevant - in a thread discussing SOCIALISM.

And COLLECTIVES do exist 'in society'. They're everywhere. Are you a member of multi-generational family which cohabits and shares labor and costs? If so, you're in a collective.

 

1) Yes, that's exactly what it is. Like bees, working together for the hive. That's why it should always be voluntary.

2) A SLACKER'S dream? More like a slacker's nightmare. See 'bees'. No one gets to sit down while everyone else works.

 

The group decides, together. That's what 'collective' means. And there is no 'getting' that isn't provided by the work of their own hands.

 

Conservatives want equal opportunity

But liberals want equal results

And libs want government yo make up the difference when necessary