Skip to comments.Why Isn't Socialism Dead?
Posted on 05/05/2006 9:51:03 AM PDT by Jane2005
Socialism may well spring back to life with a force shocking to those who have declared socialism to be no longer viable. Lee Harris on the challenge that capitalism faces today. Whether it will rise to the challenge is perhaps the most urgent question of our time.
Because we feel sorry for losers?
Socialism isn't dead because there will always be a bunch of idiots who trumpet its ideals.
These are the same idiots that have never created anything, have nothing to lose, and are unable to process or accept rational thought, logical conclusions, or the lessons of history.
Socialism is like the Black Death, except it's killed vastly more people.
Clinton just proved Socialism is alive , with his Coalition
to TAKE SODA out of the schools.
You don't seem to have an answer yet...and the answer is simple.
Socialism isn't dead because tyrants continue to seek the meant to control their fellow man.
Socialism never died because we have the liberal left.
Socialism isn't dead because, well, it appears that really bad ideas die very, very slowly.
Socialism is a vampire. It sucks your blood, turns you into a zombie and cannot be killed easily.........
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you and me.
Says I "But Joe, you're ten years dead"
"I never died" said he
It's a great question that deserves a lot of attention. I hope we'll continue to talk about this topic, and hopefully come up with more ideas for slaying this ugly, multi-headed beast.
I'm glad the author wrote about this, and I'm glad you've posted it here.
Socialism isn't dead because, truth be told, most people like it.
Take a look around. You don't see many people crying about the redistributionist aspect of the home mortgage deduction, or the child credit, do you?
Many who consider themselves "conservative" are really more concerned about who "deserves" the benefits rather than whether they should exist at all.
This is why the republican party has gone the way it has too. No matter what kind of rhetoric they spout, they know that in order to get re-elected, they need to bring home the bacon.
If it didn't really work that way, believe me they wouldn't be doing it.
BECAUSE... socialism is caused by democracies.. Democracies are the source of socialism.. Socialism is just a symptom.. of the social disease of a Democracy.. that is; democracy as a form of givernment..
Big difference between democracy and "A" democracy..
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams (1814)
NOTE; Thats WHY in the U.S. Constitution there are three words omitted ON PURPOSE...
1) democracy.. 2) democractic.. 3) and democrat.. Not to be found.. The founders KNEW a democracy was Slavery by Givernment.
Because you can't fix 'Stupid'.
"Democracy will never work once the people learn they can vote largess for themselves."
Why isn't socialism dead?
Because control freaks are born every minute.
Read Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom", and it is both illuminating and disheartening.
The book was written in...1940, if my memory serves me correctly, and he talks about how socialism has been discredited in many circles, how there is always that group that says "Oh, it just wasn't done correctly...", and how it keeps springing to life.
He also observes how far behind Europe we are in America in recognizing the socialism is always doomed to failure, and that we have yet to go through the process of finding out for ourselves that it won't work.
Of course, one can always argue that the Roosevelts were socialists (Eleanor most CERTAINLY was) and that we did go through our socialist cycle. But one only needs to look at Europe today, to see that the Phoenix of socialism continues to spring forth from the ashes.
In his great book "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to The Economy", Thomas Sowell explains in his wonderful way how socialism will always, always, always fail in comparison to a capitalistic society.
I never understood why people thought communism was DEAD AND NO LONGER A THREAT when the most populated country in the world (China) along with North Korea and others still practiced it.
Socialism won't die, in my opinion, because it is a paradox and many people can't or wont understand that. Giving money to the poor seems like the obvious solution to poverty. I remember wondering, while I was in grade school, why world leaders were too stupid to figure it out.
Like some difficult questions whose answers are the opposite of what at first seems like the logical solution, the correctness of capitalism has to be learned through experience or direct education. It is not instinctual.
Because "Hope Springs Eternal"........
Why, indeed? And why do wicked governments rule countries whose people don't want them in power (North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Nigeria, Sudan, Venezuela, Myanmar, Nepal?
They also exploit the social problems and inequities of a country to agitate and gain power.
For instance, both have exploited racial problems in the United States.
>.They also exploit the social problems and inequities of a country to agitate and gain power.
For instance, both have exploited racial problems in the United States.<<
Yep. And they have less success when the core social injusticies are less. Its harder for the Balck Panthers to gain traction when many cops and city officials are black as well as many of the judges.
Because control freaks are born every minute.
Aye, they are the ones who can give you forty nine reasons why the true meaning of freedom is being free to do as they want you to do. But they are not really bad people, they only want to control you, "for your own good".
Because not even most Republicans are against it. (See Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, etc.)
Also, one of the many reasons some countries get one lousy dictator after another.
>>Also, one of the many reasons some countries get one lousy dictator after another.<<
Yep, I am so greatful our forefathers had the foresight to look beyond their immediate situation and craft our system of government- the quick fix of picking a new king must have tempting.
To quote (insert favorite useful leftist idiot's name here):
"Because socialism is a viable theory. We just haven't found the right socialists to implement it."
The problem with socialism (amongst it's most devout defenders) is NOT political. It is either a defect in logic (the belief that human nature either does not exist, or, if it does, that it can be controlled by the police state or a few verses of Kumbaya, chose the extreme that best suits your tolerance for violence), or more often the substitution of the theory and philosophy in place of religion (thank you Kant, Kofka, et. al.).
George Orwell (once a committed socialist) wrote at great length on these issues. I would recommend you find a really good compilation of his essays (not 1984, Animal Farm, The Road to Wigan Pier or Homage to Catalonia) to track his path from committed socialist to jaded realist. Penguin Books has published a really good one, and quite extensive (the Complete Essays of George Orwell).
Read Orwell and you'll see why some of his day thought it possible that socialism would work, and, consequently, why some of the same people finally discovered that it never could.
Correct. See post #37.
Per Orwell and the disfunctions of leftist ideology (paraphrasing here):
A leftist is usually someone who never truly wants, nor does he ever expect, to actually exercise political power. They'd rather deal in the fantasy world of theory. Consequently, when they DO manage to achieve power, they are paralyzed by the spectre of personal responsibility, either for their theory or their actions.
In effect, a leftist is your lazy teenager; he'd rather complain about his lot in life than get off his butt and actually do something about it, and if by some chance he's FORCED to take action, he lacks the practical experience to make a good job of it, usually.
"Socialism isn't dead because, well, it appears that really bad ideas die very, very slowly."
I don't know about that. After all, Disco, polyesther leisure suits, pet rocks, earth shoes, platform shoes for men, Hai Karate, and Free Beer Night at the Ballpark all lasted less than a decade.
I think this is an excellent point. I would add that capitalism leads to complexity while socialism is simple (though it creates complex problems). Isn't that ironic? A market economy is so complex that no single mind, no matter how bright, can fully comprehend it. A socialist economy, on the other hand, can be completely described with a block diagram. It takes a lifetime to really get the subtle reasons for why the amoral markets create so many material blessings for so many people. On the other hand, a college kid can have socialism fully mastered by the end of his sophomore year. Socialism is simple and therefore attractive.
I agree. However, you don't have to be a poverty stricken country to accept socialism. My Scandinavian and Israeli associates believe that socialism provides freedom. Since they don't have to worry about health care, unemployment checks (plenty of socialists are unemployed, but they get checks longer than we do), they are free to pursue life's higher callings rather than worry about providing for themselves. (don't you just love intellectuals?)
I don't understand why people don't want to be in control of their own lives.
"I never understood why people thought communism was DEAD AND NO LONGER A THREAT when the most populated country in the world (China) along with North Korea and others still practiced it."
China no longer even PRETENDS to practice communism. Or do you call a country with a growing (dare I say it!) Capitalist economy, growing rates of personal income, and a stock market a communist country?
What the Chinese practice is a hybrid; capitalism is "good" so long as it is not followed by the (natural) progression between personal property and wealth and political rights.
In a nutshell, the Chinese looked north and saw what had happened to the Soviet Union and determined that was not going to hapopen in the Middle Kingdom. So, they gave people the illusion of freedom (go make all the money you want and can), while maintaining control of the apparatus of state (you might be rich, but we're still in charge. Now be a good little fellow and go back to your PlayStation, Whirlpool refrigerator and personal autombile and forget politics). However, they will pay the price when the population finally realizes that they need to protect that money from the very same State apparatus.
Personal wealth, private property and economic self-interest (and the need to protect them from the ravages of the State) are the precursors to a hue and cry for political freedom.
Evil will never die.
I've seen similar assessments and don't agree. When the Berlin Wall, and the Iron Curtain fell, China was still a communist state. And it is still a communist state today. The so-called "capitalism" that exists within it's boundaries only serves to prop up the current regime, which is the reason it was permitted.
That's particularly true because of the existence of today's Welfare state. It was not so true throughout most of U.S. history.
Very true. That same attitude is prevalent throught most of Europe and the Western World most of which has become largely socialized.
The above is where we disagree. The current regime will permit only the amount of capitalism it requires to stay in power. China is still a communist state based on Maoism which is somewhat different from the the Soviet Union style communism, based on Leninism.
Because way to many people(some freepers included) get off sexually on the control they have over other peoples lives under socialist policys check out the smoking threads on the pufflist keyword sometimes