Posted on 09/25/2017 1:31:54 PM PDT by grundle
Edited on 09/25/2017 1:32:32 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
“Or organize into a community that grows it...”
Because the gov’t, the military, or the zombies would come and take it and maybe kill them in the process.
[Because the gov’t, the military, or the zombies would come and take it and maybe kill them in the process.]
SMH. Ever hear which part of common human anatomy excuses are like?
Meanwhile...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYpDlwx44pI
I agree. No doubt about it.
“Hmmm.... who has the money to pay them?”
US Secret Service?
[Because the gov’t, the military, or the zombies would come and take it and maybe kill them in the process.]
Maybe the zombies only come out when it’s dark... and the urban farms aren’t being filmed.
[Voices from Venezuela: Urban Agriculture]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3aYiHdqYng
Did this work, why... why not?
Maybe the “professionals” were too lazy to farm... or something.
the NEA does the same thing but they prostitute themselves for the Dems
“Preppers” in Venezuela?
[Venezuela Starts Education Program For Youth On Urban Agriculture]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXj2CRk3Clw
They probably voted for Chavez and Maduro so forgive me if I am not entirely sympathetic.
Ain’t Socialism grand?
The glories of Socialism, works every time.
The one thing money can’t buy. Poverty.
Tell that to George Soros. He has paid to impoverish millions!
I think the Soviets called them "collective farms". No, it didn't work.
The reasons typically boil down to corruption and lack of incentives.
One of the economic turning points just prior to the fall of the Soviet Union involved the sale of potatoes. The "owners" of the potatoes wanted to transport them to a distant place where the prices were higher. The local government insisted that the potatoes be sold locally at lower prices.
I think it may have been Gorbachev who overruled the local government, allowing the producers to seek the best prices. When I saw this happening, I knew the Soviet Union was dead.
The woman in the video is selling "socialism" not tomatoes. When you see the part of the video talking about "free" meals for the school kids, I see every kid wearing red clothing. This is typically what happens to socialists. They can only afford one type or color of clothing.
A friend of the family grew up in Berlin during the cold war. His cousins lived in East Germany. The socialist economy could only afford one type of water faucet. Almost every faucet in East Germany was identical and looked just like the hose bib outside my house. Socialist first engage in the "one size fits all" economy. Eventually even that one size becomes unavailable through legal channels and must be procured through a black market.
The lack of profit incentives causes socialists to make millions of decisions which are less than optimal. Eventually this acts as sand in the gears of the economy and the system grinds to a halt. Without the machine guns and barbed wire to imprison the people, socialist governments fail even faster than in the past. It took the Soviets 70 years to fail. Venezuela might only take 35.
>>I think the Soviets called them “collective farms”.
>>No, it didn’t work.
The Jesuits/Catholics had a different name:
https://www.google.com/search?q=paraguay+reductions+beautiful
>>lack of incentives.
Seems to me not starving would be a good incentive.
But, pigs in the farmhouse —>> “Corruption”
Yep.
You’re the man!
Spoken like a true Christian
I’m sure most folks on this forum think along the same lines.
I like restating facts to reinforce good thoughts in others.
Venezuela is the democrat socialist dream of equality fully implimented-Equal poverty and misery for all.
“The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce the community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives. Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.”
Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
Looks like Karl is wrong again.
That is an excellent point. Elections have consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.