Posted on 03/26/2006 7:29:26 AM PST by RepublicNewbie
France, the birth-place of socialism, is now living socialism's logical end-game.
Mobs in the streets of France, led by university students, are smashing store-fronts, burning automobiles, barricading streets, and their labor union buddies are threatening a syndicalist general strike.
The occasion for this fulmination is the proposed enactment of a first-job contract law that would permit businesses to fire a worker under the age of 25 for any reason during his first two years of employment.
These reactions are idiotic. Students are rioting against legal action to make it easier for them to get jobs, a process with limited prospects of success today.
Unemployment overall is somewhere well north of 10% and nearly 25% among people under age 25.
The reason for this is, in short, socialism.
(Excerpt) Read more at postchronicle.com ...
Other reads from tPC ( Coulter one is funny )
| The Illegal Immigration Reform Scam This weekend, thousands of activists and illegal aliens have been rallying in Los Angeles to protest against plans to further criminalize so-called undocumented workers. ... More |
|
Milan: Center for Radical Islam in Europe
Considered the center for radical Islam in Europe, Muslims have arrived in Milan more recently and relatively few have acquired citizenship. ... More Sean Penn Has Ann Coulter Voodoo Doll
We love Sean Penn, he can always be counted on to do something, anything to get himself press. Remember his feeble attempt to save children from the floods of New Orleans, Louisiana?... More They Shoot Old Reporters, Don't They?
You have to laugh when you see once-upon-a-time UPI reporter Helen Thomas. A creviced stump of a woman, she nevertheless goes toe to toe with anyone in the White House that happens to bare the initials "GOP."... More |
| Conspiracy Susceptibility In theory, liberals are supposed to be rational materialists who dismiss the spiritual realm as fiction. Ironically, they are peculiarly vulnerable to the gnostic mysticism of conspiracy theories.... More |
| Liberals Interpret the Scriptures; The Gospel According to Marx Is it only me or are there others who are sick and tired of Liberals quoting the Bible -- or claiming to quote the Scriptures?... More |
But anyone with the brain the size of a pea can know this without having to try it! It requires a totalitarian, oppressive government for its implementation, and it destroys incentive.
Capitalism, on the other hand, has been proven time and again to generate prosperity, wealth, incentive, and creativity.
Post-Cold-War Europe mindlessly decided to emulate the Marxist catastrophe of East Germany instead of the Capitalist miracle of West Germany. The results were to be expected. Europe is now a catastrophe.
Yet many throughout the world--even in the U.S.A.--are determined that Marxism will work--and want to give it yet another try.
Denial is the most dangerous thing in the world. Never underestimate its power.
I'm pretty sure that socialism had existed well before France did.
"Yet many throughout the world--even in the U.S.A.--are determined that Marxism will work--and want to give it yet another try."
- That’s because they are emotionally immature & retarded. All leftist are. All leftist subscribe hook line and sinker into the greatest source of evil in this world…moral relativism. Besides, anyone who fantasizes about "utopias" is either a dreamer or an idiot. It's too bad there are so many stupid people in the world who prefer misery over self reliance.
"I'm pretty sure that socialism had existed well before France did."
Yep. Just look back to early Christian church history and you'll be amazed at all the socialism being advocated (and practiced).
The problem with France (and Germany, Italy, Holland, etc) is that they have embraced the false belief that social justice and peace can be bought while ignoring the baser instincts of human nature.
Or, as Chairman Mao so elequently put it, "There is no such thing as human nature."
The first rule of human nature: it is not enough to simply "have enough", one must "have more", and it doesn't matter where "more" comes from.
A friend of mine once described the liberal creed as, "Okay, so my last 26 schemes didn't work. But you really owe it to yourself to listen to number 27..."
More cynicism based on bad history?
No,merely the realization that human nature (free will, for those of you more religiously inclined) makes "true" socialism (of the sort envisioned by most of these nuts) impossible.
There will be some willing to make the sacrfices necessary, obviously, but more often than not, those sacrifices will have to be coerced from the vast majority.
And which/what bad history are you talking about?
Too much doctrinaire mish mash for me.
If you say so, but where is the "doctrinaire mishmash"? Or is simple comparison now "mishmash"?
If early Christian communities, where the sharing of, and pareclling-out, of common resources, is not socialism, then what is? It should not matter that socialism was not, at the time, a (half-)thought-out political doctrine, nor that the underlying motivation was religious rather than political or economic.
If the notion was presented to you free of the religious angle, would you recognize it as socialism in action?
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
The friend of Wizardoz was really on to something. Not for nothing is France now in its "Fifth Republic." The "Sixth Republic" cannot be far off. However, it may be called the "Islamic Republic of France."
I will give the Leftists this (don't refer to these people as "Liberals"; there's nothing liberal about them!): Most of them are not Sociopaths.
You sound like Hillary Clinton. The voluntary sharing of early Christians is a far cry from state enforced socialism imposed at the point of bayonets, secret police, and guns. That is why a quote from Mao seemed so discordant I didn't know what to say, except mishmash. Next you will be calling families socialist, except you may know that they regard families as reactionary.
My apologies, I thought the quote from Mao was self-evident in it's meaning; under totalitarian socialism, inconvenient truisms (such as human nature) can be conveniently ignored since they would tend to make the idea of socialism a farce (one thing a socialist cannot stand is to be mocked).
Conversely, it has another meaning: since I own the guns (Mao is saying), history, etc, is what I say it is. If I declare that human nature does not exist, then those that persist in this idea are reminded that I (Mao) have a monopoly of force.
And failing then capitalism replacing it and succeeding. You might want to finish the story.
True enough. But even capitalism could not flourish until the combination of the Reformation, the Black Death and the Enlightenment had caused society to divorce itself from the superstition and iron rule of the Church, when men no longer sought sustenance from Lord or Bishop and instead became masters of their own domains.
Nothing like praying for salvation from the Plague, for example, (and not getting it) to cause one to lose faith in the Church, the Monarch and the systems they created, to get people's attention. Nothing like a landless peasant now demanding to be paid for his labor, since there was an acute shortage after the Black Death swept threough, with the assurance that he just might have his demands met! Self-help became the order of the day because there was no other help to be had.
Once the Church and Monarch had lost authority in such a way (reflexive superstition and unquestioned authority) it was only a matter of time before other Chrich teachings/conventional wisdom was tossed out on it's colective ear: the world was not flat, Jerusalem was not the center of the world, man could discern the fabric of nature, salvation did not require a priest, Aristotle was dead wrong, etc, etc.
Released (so to speak) from the bonds of superstition and Christian duty, to his fellow man and monarch, the first Capitalists went at it with a passion.
Sorry, but there was no falling away from Christianity at that time, just away from the Catholic Church.
Nothing like actually reading the Bible in your own language to figure out if the Church is following the Bible or not and even that movement was slow not overnight.
Besides I guess you just might want to read up on the spread of Christianity during the time period the Greeks were persecuting and killing Christians. Hint the faith grew and spread not losing their faith.
About the time of the French Revolution began the 'enlightened' anti-Christian thinking and all the killing that has ever gone with those enlightened type of humanistic governments from national socialism to communism and its lesser cousin socialism.
Released (so to speak) from the bonds of superstition and Christian duty, to his fellow man and monarch, the first Capitalists went at it with a passion.
Released to follow Christianity in its purist form gave the West freedom which we then slowly spread. If you do not believe that the freedoms we enjoy today in America are due to Christianity you just might want to go and read what the founders wrote about where they got the inspiration for our freedoms and how they were sure that keeping those freedoms in the future were tied to us keeping a strong Christian society. They spell out all their reasoning in writings.
History is tied to religion. The future is tied to it also(sadly that is a scary thought since there is a great falling away from the only religion that has brought freedom).
I do not disagree with you on the point about religion and freedom being undisputably tied together. I do, however, dispute you on the notion that progress (scientific, economic or social) could not exist without religion.
"Sorry, but there was no falling away from Christianity at that time, just away from the Catholic Church."
Au contraire. One only need to research British history (c. 1340's) to recognize the concurrent themes of the establishment of a new, landed class (i.e. the new phenomenon of formerly-serf businessmen becoming nobility rather than nobility conferred by birth), with the rise in the belief that the Church was all garnish and no meat (the first rumblings of protestantism, in England, at least). These happenings co-incided with the first wave of Plague deaths, which put a premium on the labor of "freemen" (who could now dictate terms of employment), and the tendency of the survivors to inherit the property (hides) of their unfortunate relatives, which when consolidated, began to represent real wealth in Medieval terms.
The first priority of the new monied class was to protect that wealth, from both Church AND King, and to supplant the former nobility with their own members. Granted, religion did not disappear from European society, but it no longer commanded the respect (or special place) it once did. It was relegated to a secondary role -- as a club of the remaining monarchs, and their more rebellious subjects. Relgion became a tool of the ruling class.
"Nothing like actually reading the Bible in your own language to figure out if the Church is following the Bible or not and even that movement was slow not overnight."
True, the printing of the Bible in vernacular languages did a lot to make spirituality a more "personal" matter and led to personal interpretations of doctrine, and the heretical (to the Church) belief that Bishops, priests and all that rot were no longer necessary to personal salvation (including all the other nonsense of chantries, Purgatory, et. al.). But it was the calamities that befell Europe in the 1300's (famine, plagues, etc) that started the questioning of the power of the church (as intercessor) in the first place. The transparent manipulation of the Church by political bigwigs of the day (Henry VIII, the Bourbons, the Valois, Hapsburghs, etc), also added to the damage done to the Church's reputation and authority.
"Besides I guess you just might want to read up on the spread of Christianity during the time period the Greeks were persecuting and killing Christians. Hint the faith grew and spread not losing their faith."
The Greeks were not the only ones persecuting the faith. The Romans did (until Constatine put the problem to rest by legally recognizing Christianity). Christians themselves did an awful lot of persecuting, based on interpretations of doctrine (Monophylitism, the Albegensian Heresy, the Inquisition, Crusades which fell upon Christendom rather than Islam, etc). The issue is not that the Church survived, but that it managed to do so despite the obvious fault lines. I never intended to get into this kind of discussion because it was not germain to the original process (i.e. the failure of socialism). I will say this, however: for an institution which preaches man's duty to his fellow man, I find it laughable that the Church requests charity from it's followers while it's leaders live in oppulent splendor (just visit the Vatican, for instance), and preaches the virtue of poverty with no sense of irony (or shame).
"About the time of the French Revolution began the 'enlightened' anti-Christian thinking and all the killing that has ever gone with those enlightened type of humanistic governments from national socialism to communism and its lesser cousin socialism."
"Released to follow Christianity in its purist form gave the West freedom which we then slowly spread. If you do not believe that the freedoms we enjoy today in America are due to Christianity you just might want to go and read what the founders wrote about where they got the inspiration for our freedoms and how they were sure that keeping those freedoms in the future were tied to us keeping a strong Christian society. They spell out all their reasoning in writings."
I'd hardly consider the French Revolution and it's intellectual and political stepchildren to be "enlightened" in nature. All that happened was that it was now acceptable to use politics as an excuse to kill your enemies, just as in days past, religion could be used for the same purpose. The fact that God continued to be invoked to allow this was simply the "peasants" adapting the same argument for the exercise of power that the Monarch did (i.e. Divine Right). If the Monarch could claim God's protection and sanction, so could the populace, and who would (could) argue with it?
I do not,for a second, not believe that the men who founded both the United States and the French Republic were not convinced of their "Godly" support. Without it, it is questionable as to whether they would have dared lay claims (and hands) upon their former Monarchs and feudal overlords. That question is philosophical, not grounded in "reality" (for lack of a better term -- i.e. would God come to Jefferson like he did to Moses, and give him the authority, and doctrine, with which to rule?).
Furthermore, science (such as it was) could never have advanced beyond church superstition had there not been a general loss of faith in the Church and it's institutions. Certainly, the church played an important role by being the keepers of the (scholarly) remains of ancient Greece and Rome, but everyday practical experience was increasingly calling the Church's official views on this knowledge into question.
Henry the Navigator, for example, would never have begun his enterprise if he had been wedded to the Church's view of geography. Practical experience was proving the Church wrong on everything from geography to physical sciences. It took only a few men with crowbars to start this process (Martin Luther, Columbus, Mercator, Erasmus, Paracelsus, etc). But the process began in the late 1300's-1400's with famine, plague and dislocation, which called the very existance of God and the Church's role as intercessor into question.
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.