Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Problem With Soft Socialism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Problem With Soft Socialism

    Itís a lie!

    https://www.hoover.org/research/problem-soft-socialism
    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

  • #2
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    There is no such thing, as mildly or soft, it's just like Surplus Ammo Dealers advertising Ammo as "mildly corrosive primed", there is no such thing, It Is or it ain't, if it's mildly corrosive, IT'S Corrosive!
    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes there are a large number of these "white lies" floating around these days. Walls don't work, only white people can be racist, campuses are dangerous for women, social media isn't bias against conservatives, the gender pay gap, women can be men and men can be women, gentle giant in Ferguson, the crime of Russian collusion, and my favorite the religion of peace. Even if the vast majority of people are children that can't care for themselves in modern societies I've yet to meet a liberal (soft communist) who I would allow to run my personal finances. Does anyone actually think they would want to turn the entire economy over to a group of people who would shut down a government because they don't like the orange man?

      I don't suppose there is anything new about this phenomenon. How many people do you suppose actually believed Caesar was a god, that all the little ceasars had divine rights, or the myriad of other little lies that grease the wheels of social cohesion? People are desperate to believe in something that makes them part of a larger group. The fanaticism of fans and their favorite teams is perhaps an example of how little it matters what the idea that binds people together is. Give people a flag and they will go off murdering each other in huge numbers to acquire a piece of land that they really never wanted.

      Socialism today seems to be about some sort of twisted maternal instinct. Liberals have adopted whole groups of people that are reduced to infants to be protected from the white male patriarchy. Third wave feminism got it's start as a Marxist ideology. Something I suspect most of the people wearing pussy hats don't realize. The mothering instinct gone wrong is a study in sociopathic empathy. When people talk about the rape culture I like to remind them that almost every rapist was raised primarily by a female. The male feminist is simply someone who has adopted the pathology. Past the age of two a smothering mother is about the worst thing that can happen to a child. The irony is that the smothering mother is often also the absent mother. Her motivation is not to care for but to be needed by. You can see this play out in the sanctuary cities which have some of the highest rates of homelessness and resent immigrants live 5 families to an apartment and even then can't afford their electric bills if they are forced to live away from the coast. The sanctuary state has the largest population of homeless and one third of the welfare recipients in the nation and those numbers are growing at the same time businesses flee the state. Head start was a dismal failure because the goal wasn't to develop individuals but equality. Welfare broke the family and created the cesspool of inner city crime. As soon as women could marry the state they did because who needs responsibility when you can have free weave and weed. It would be easy to see the government as more about dependency on than caring for the population and fits the narrative of munchausen syndrome by proxy pretty well.

      It doesn't help that the intellectual elite has decided that freewill is an illusion. The funny part is that the elites act as if they themselves not only have freewill but are omniscient. Socialism in a word is hubris and is attractive to people who lack the real world experience to understand how hard it is to say put a Apache helicopter together let alone run an entire economy. If you spend you life as a bureaucrat you probably have never failed in a way you couldn't escape personal responsibility for and the same goes for academics and the media. If you look at Brussels creating the European Union of Socialist States it is as if the bureaucrats that run the EU didn't notice that the Soviet Union was a colossal failure. This time of course they will get it right because they are smarter than Russians, Chinese , Cambodians, Cubans, and Venezuelans. And yes Alexandra Ocaso Cortez really does think she is more intelligent than Ben Shapiro. The bigots that may scoff are simply unfamiliar with emotional intelligence.

      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        As I've stated before, the other thing Socialism requires from people is that they act altruistically. That is they are expected to willingly put in their best effort and for many see most of what they produce be given to other individuals. Thus for example, if 10 workers doing the same job got 10 varied levels of output, the 9 doing more than the lowest level of output for the same reward would quickly reduce their own output to match that of the lowest producer. In fact, some might even see just how little they can do and still get the full reward.

        In a perpetual welfare state, particularly one where the amount of welfare exceeds the rewards of working some jobs, many will simply opt to take the handout and spend their time on either leisure or doing something that gets around the system and produces additional reward-- like criminal activity.

        For example, among the current crop of Democrats on the Left that might run for president in 2020

        Elizabeth Warren. A Harvard law grad who worked in academia then in government. No real world experience
        Kamala Harris. Spent her whole life as a government prosecutor before going into politics. No real world experience.
        Bernie Sanders A poly sci degree. Began as an 'activist' then what today would be called community organizer, then in politics and government. No real world experience.
        Cory Booker. Law degree then into politics. No real world experience

        What you have pretty much across the board running on the Democrat side are political science majors who got law degrees and have worked in government all their lives. There's a few that have some other non-private sector experience like Sanders, or Warren but none have ever had to actually produce results beyond bureaucratic ones.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

          There is no such thing, as mildly or soft, it's just like Surplus Ammo Dealers advertising Ammo as "mildly corrosive primed", there is no such thing, It Is or it ain't, if it's mildly corrosive, IT'S Corrosive!
          Matter of degree. Salt water is corrosive, but not as corrosive as sulphuric acid.

          I think of "soft socialism" as being only "slightly pregnant." It increases with time.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            Yes there are a large number of these "white lies" floating around these days. Walls don't work, only white people can be racist, campuses are dangerous for women, social media isn't bias against conservatives, the gender pay gap, women can be men and men can be women, gentle giant in Ferguson, the crime of Russian collusion, and my favorite the religion of peace. Even if the vast majority of people are children that can't care for themselves in modern societies I've yet to meet a liberal (soft communist) who I would allow to run my personal finances. Does anyone actually think they would want to turn the entire economy over to a group of people who would shut down a government because they don't like the orange man?

            I don't suppose there is anything new about this phenomenon. How many people do you suppose actually believed Caesar was a god, that all the little ceasars had divine rights, or the myriad of other little lies that grease the wheels of social cohesion? People are desperate to believe in something that makes them part of a larger group. The fanaticism of fans and their favorite teams is perhaps an example of how little it matters what the idea that binds people together is. Give people a flag and they will go off murdering each other in huge numbers to acquire a piece of land that they really never wanted.

            Socialism today seems to be about some sort of twisted maternal instinct. Liberals have adopted whole groups of people that are reduced to infants to be protected from the white male patriarchy. Third wave feminism got it's start as a Marxist ideology. Something I suspect most of the people wearing pussy hats don't realize. The mothering instinct gone wrong is a study in sociopathic empathy. When people talk about the rape culture I like to remind them that almost every rapist was raised primarily by a female. The male feminist is simply someone who has adopted the pathology. Past the age of two a smothering mother is about the worst thing that can happen to a child. The irony is that the smothering mother is often also the absent mother. Her motivation is not to care for but to be needed by. You can see this play out in the sanctuary cities which have some of the highest rates of homelessness and resent immigrants live 5 families to an apartment and even then can't afford their electric bills if they are forced to live away from the coast. The sanctuary state has the largest population of homeless and one third of the welfare recipients in the nation and those numbers are growing at the same time businesses flee the state. Head start was a dismal failure because the goal wasn't to develop individuals but equality. Welfare broke the family and created the cesspool of inner city crime. As soon as women could marry the state they did because who needs responsibility when you can have free weave and weed. It would be easy to see the government as more about dependency on than caring for the population and fits the narrative of munchausen syndrome by proxy pretty well.

            It doesn't help that the intellectual elite has decided that freewill is an illusion. The funny part is that the elites act as if they themselves not only have freewill but are omniscient. Socialism in a word is hubris and is attractive to people who lack the real world experience to understand how hard it is to say put a Apache helicopter together let alone run an entire economy. If you spend you life as a bureaucrat you probably have never failed in a way you couldn't escape personal responsibility for and the same goes for academics and the media. If you look at Brussels creating the European Union of Socialist States it is as if the bureaucrats that run the EU didn't notice that the Soviet Union was a colossal failure. This time of course they will get it right because they are smarter than Russians, Chinese , Cambodians, Cubans, and Venezuelans. And yes Alexandra Ocaso Cortez really does think she is more intelligent than Ben Shapiro. The bigots that may scoff are simply unfamiliar with emotional intelligence.
            It's not as complicated as you make it appear. Those in power favor the system that best sustains, maintains and perpetuates their positions. A system of benevolent dictatorship - oxymoron at the gold standard level - places them in control and gives them the economic and social power to stay there. The Soviets, after all, had an entire hierarchy of elites with special privileges and powers wile calling each other "comrade". The Chinese communist experiment produced the same results.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

              It's not as complicated as you make it appear. Those in power favor the system that best sustains, maintains and perpetuates their positions. A system of benevolent dictatorship - oxymoron at the gold standard level - places them in control and gives them the economic and social power to stay there. The Soviets, after all, had an entire hierarchy of elites with special privileges and powers wile calling each other "comrade". The Chinese communist experiment produced the same results.
              You ignore how much social mobility remains in our system based on competency. Of course cronyism sets in after people become successful. Rockefeller had good reason to say competition is a sin after he out competed everyone else. The problem with the self made man is that they often fail to acknowledge that the environment in which they became successful has as much to do with their success as their personal effort. Systems that are not hierarchies of competence stagnate and die as in the Soviet Union.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                That's another thing with Socialism-- A hardening of the class structure. You lose social mobility and are usually pigeon holed into a particular place in the social structure. Class defines you rather than society being largely classless and upward or downward mobility being possible and regular.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not true. In a capitalist society you're much more bound by your origins and class. Socialism provides people with more equal opportunities.
                  There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                    Not true. In a capitalist society you're much more bound by your origins and class. Socialism provides people with more equal opportunities.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      English teacher now using only but smileys...
                      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                        Not true. In a capitalist society you're much more bound by your origins and class. Socialism provides people with more equal opportunities.
                        Which gulag were you in when they taught you that?
                        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                          Which gulag were you in when they taught you that?
                          When I was watching Native Americans being slaughtered.
                          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                            Which gulag were you in when they taught you that?
                            Perhaps you should study issue rather than going with your gut feeling. According to many studies US has least social mobility among Western countries. Here is article you can use to educate yourself.
                            https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...-their-country

                            There are more if you need more info on subject.
                            "Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery"
                            Robert G. Ingersoll 1833-1899

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              That's another thing with Socialism-- A hardening of the class structure. You lose social mobility and are usually pigeon holed into a particular place in the social structure. Class defines you rather than society being largely classless and upward or downward mobility being possible and regular.

                              Of the eight countries studiedóCanada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, the UK and the US, the US had both the highest economic inequality and lowest economic mobility.
                              You talk utter pish.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X