Raving Conservative

Google

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Socialism, Good Idea Gone Bad, or Just Plain Bad?

I once did a biography of Lenin, the one who brought communism to Russia and set the stage for for too mant crimes against humanity to name, and was really set to thinking. Is socialism/Communism bad because of the people in charge, or because the system itself is evil.

The idea of Socialism is utopian. A society where evryone selflessly does his or her job for the common good and expects no more in return than anyone else gets so everyone gets taken care of. In small communities of like-minded people this has even worked, and worked well. There are two problems with this system though. Not everyoone thinks alike regardless of the amount of indoctrination they receve, and every society eventually grows large to need full time leaders. Let's examine these two problems.

Since not everyone will think alike, and since mankind is inherrently greedy and selfish it will not take long for somebody to decide that what he or she does for the community is worth more than what some or all of the other people do. Once this happens others will follow suit, there will be hoarding, and the system breaks down.

Socialism places a lot of power in leadership to maintan the staus quo, so much so in fact that leaders tend to move the Socialist community to Communism. Communism is a totalitarian system that places godlike powers in the hands of the government. Since power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely you wind with people like Stalin, Mao, Castro et al running the show. Even leaders who entered office pure soon become intoxicated with the total power and become corupt despots. While this now allows the forced equality of reciept . . . or else, it does not motivate people to produce anything to share with the community in the first place. It also is the direct cause of millions of murders of dissidents, students, artists, innocents whose identities are mixed up, loyal people the leader grows suspicious of, and the list goes on.

Based on the way the system develops naturally I must conclude that it the system of Socialism/Communism that is inherrently bad, if not outright evil. If the nature of man were more pure and innocent it could work, but that is not the case and it doesn't. It is foolishness to promote such a society, and it is a cause of the ignorant who either don't know history, or actually believe they can do it better. These people need to be educated so they will shut up and realize just how great a system we have in America.

18 Comments:

  • Amazing that some of the most "educated" people I have met are the most rabid socialistas.

    There are two universities within 15 miles of our location, and, having children grad from both of them at one time or another, most of the PhD's from the Ivory Towers are rabid Greenie/MoveOn.org slime.

    The education has to start at home level, then continue in the public school system to be effective.

    Unfortunately, the most raving socialistas from the collegiate community here, are teachers of teachers! Yes, here is a New York State Teachers College, often referred to as "The Berkely of New York", which could also apply to Cornell or New Paltz.

    As all politics starts at the grass routes level, we have to change the school boards and their hiring practices in order to teach our youngsters that socialism is wrong,
    Stalin was a mass murderer, evolution is a theory and not a fact, etc.

    Unfortunately, most people don't have time or motivation to go to school board meetings, guts to duke it out with board members, or run for office themselves.

    If you don't oppose them, they'll run right over you. If you stand up for what you believe, they run like roaches for the tall grass.

    Phanton_Driver
    Proud father of an American Soldier

    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 12:47 PM  

  • Socialism/communism is not "wrong." It is an economic structure that has been abused in the past and has worked occasionally to a certain degree.

    I give you Socialist France, Sandinistan Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Are these places paradigms of perfection? No. But neither are we. But are they mass murderers along the lines of Stalin? No.

    What I find interesting is that those opposed to communism inevitably cite the depravity of humanity as a reason, and yet, these same opponents of communism think depraved humanity will behave well enough to function in a capitalist society.

    Does that mean I'm a great supporter of communism? Not necessarily. It just means that I recognize it as just another flawed economic system, as is capitalism.

    Your slimy friend,

    Dan

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 1:14 PM  

  • Socialism advocates government control of every aspect of life. Hitler's party was the NDSP, National Democrat Socialist Party.

    You think that's a good thing? As opposed to a representative republic?

    And thanks for making my point about mass murders in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. In France, they murder dogs for shark bait, and every harlot who gave a dose to a Nazi is a "freedom fighter".

    Go figure.

    Give me the representative republic every time.

    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 1:28 PM  

  • Ahhh it now becomes clear on your addled thinking, Mr. Trabue. You're a Kucinich man! (deduced from reading prior Trabue posts)

    That explains mucho about your defense of socialist regimes in Cuba, etc.

    Rave on.

    With finger on the trigger, I remain,
    Phantom_Driver
    Proud father of an American Soldier

    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 1:37 PM  

  • Well Dan, I must disagree iwth you on some points here. In Cuba people are in fact jailed and killed exactly like they were in Russia once upon a time, and for the same reasons too.
    Both Venezuela and France are Democracies with more than one party to represent the people, as it should be, and it is the voters who are responsible for every socialistic program these nations have. I know nothing about Sandinistan Nicaragua.
    Socialism/Communism is the most corruptible system of government because of the obscene power they give the government. If such are stripped of any power structure they do work in the examples I hae already cited, where the community is entirely made up of like-minded people who favor this system. Even then, the system collapses after the population reaches a certain point, never more than 4,000, and despotic leaders ruin the whole thing, or the community splinters as dissidents strike out on their own.
    Also, you are leaving modern day China where people are also jailed and murdered just like they were for the same reasons they were under Stalin in Russia. It has slowed down a bit, but it is still rampant. You overlooked Vietnam where once again the same thing happened. The worst of it, as per usual, was when the Commies first took over the country, but these atrocities still happen today.
    As an economic system Socialism?Ciommunism always fails. The nations that embrace this system are the poorest in the world, even China has a tremendous number of impovershed people, and while the state is growing wealthy, only recently have the people began to be allowed to have wealth. China apears to transforming from Communist to either fascist, or perhaps a simple tyrrany. Time will tell.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 2:46 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:12 PM  

  • I deleted the previous comment: Darn typos!

    I can think of at least one nation where the leader (who is someone I believe you hold in the highest esteem) advocated a policy that forbade personal ownership of land as we know it (where, instead, you purchased the use of the land for a certain number of years).

    A leader whose policies ensured that the rich would not continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer.

    Whose policies made sure there was food and work for all.

    A leader who advocated release of prisoners on a regular basis!

    Can you identify this nation and leader?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:13 PM  

  • You are referring to England, either Tony Blair or Madeline Albright. Both of whom I have limited respect for, and disagree with on multiple points.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 4:58 PM  

  • Actually, I'm referring to Israel and the leader is none other than God, who issued the Jubilee Laws in Leviticus and who reminded Israel of them off and on right through the Old Testament.

    And that was followed by Jesus picking them up at the beginning of his ministry, who came to "proclaim Good News to the poor, liberty to the captives... and the Day of the Lord's Good Favor (ie, Jubilee)."

    Tricky but pretty cool, huh?

    For a reference, in case you're unfamiliar with the Jubilee laws:

    10"For six years you may sow your land and gather in its produce.

    11But the seventh year you shall let the land lie untilled and unharvested, that the poor among you may eat of it and the beasts of the field may eat what the poor leave."

    Leviticus 23:10-11

    10 "And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his family.

    11 A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be to you; in it you shall neither sow, nor reap what grows of itself, nor gather the grapes from the undressed vines.

    12 For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you; you shall eat what it yields out of the field. 13 In this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his property...

    16 When the years are many, the price shall be so much the more; when the years are few, the price shall be so much the less. For it is really the number of crops that he sells you.

    17 Do not deal unfairly, then; but stand in fear of your God. I, the LORD, am your God...

    23 The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is Mine and you are but aliens and My tenants."

    Leviticus 25

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:48 AM  

  • I think you make a fine argument against communism. However, socialism is not the same as communism any more than capitalism is anarchism. A true capitalist state would be more along the lines advocated by Libertarians.

    If you want to see Socialism in action take a look at the Scandinavian countries. Here you will see countries with a longer lifespan, more even distribution of wealth, national health care, and many other fruits of modern socialism.

    You also contend that people are too greedy by nature to make a socialist society successful. This is certainly true for those people who are products of a capitalistic society, like ours, because this is the kind of thinking that capitalism encourages.

    By Anonymous John, at 8:22 AM  

  • Anyone wanting to disagree with God's notions on economy?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 1:53 PM  

  • I'm hoping the lack of response indicates everyone is spending some time researching what I've suggested.

    I was a conservative Baptist young man until I started reading the Bible and listening to what it really says. It's actually quite a radical book.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 12:21 PM  

  • "If you want to see Socialism in action take a look at the Scandinavian countries. Here you will see countries with a longer lifespan, more even distribution of wealth, national health care, and many other fruits of modern socialism."

    In scandinavia you have social-democracy, not socialism.

    "You also contend that people are too greedy by nature to make a socialist society successful. This is certainly true for those people who are products of a capitalistic society, like ours, because this is the kind of thinking that capitalism encourages."

    People are not necessarily greedy by nature. But they are ambiscious...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:03 PM  

  • it's simple - socilaism will work when humanity has mentally "evolved" to embrace it! just as democratic government replaced monarchism

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:31 PM  

  • One point I noticed no one has brought up about Socialism is that it destroys the will(Or incentive) to work. Why work hard when the person next to you works less, and both of you get paid the same? It cuts down on production because people will become lazy and make the minimum they can, which means less products on the store shelves.

    What I gather from the idea of Socialism is that money is spread as equally as possible, making everyone the same. Everyone in a job gets paid the same. Two main problems with that. 1) We have already been a Capitalist country for too long for this to work. We have gotten used to wanting to work to get paid more(Which is why the American Dream existed during the 1900's.). We would have to reset everyone and everything in America and brainwash everyone to think about others. 2) Because we have been a Capitalist country for so long, the wealthy will continue to be wealthy and the poor will continue to be poor. Because of the incentive-cutting workfield, it will be harder to get ahead in the work field, making life still as hard for the poor. But the rich will stay rich.

    However, I am open to Socialism if someone can mold it into a better being so that it doesn't make us sacrifice so much of we have accomplished in America.

    P.S. I agree with the person that talked about "Power corrupting and Absolute Power always Corrupting." I remember reading your comment, but I have forgotten what post and your name. Sorry 'bout that. >.<

    By Anonymous PloxBox, at 5:13 AM  

  • P.S. To Dan Trabue, not everyone is Christian, so trying to use the Bible as a source of information on how to run a socialistic idea is just plain terrible thought process. Next time, try not to bring religion into politics. It's not intelligent. There is a reason we try to seperate politics and religion.

    By Anonymous PloxBox, at 5:55 AM  

  • The most overlooked observation about socialism is this.

    People generally say that "socialism is not bad, people are, therefore when people are perfect socialism will work",

    The problem with this statement is that when people are perfect government will no longer be necessary, so what they are really saying is "when government is obsolete government will work" lol.

    By Blogger Ben, at 12:48 PM  

  • Socialism means public control of the means of production. It can go from authoritarian socialism, were the public elects leaders and they control the means of production, to anarcho-socialism, were the means of production are controlled directly by those producing (workers run a factory).

    There are dozens of forms of goverment that can be considered socialist, but they have one thing in common. They must be democratic, or else the public is not controlling the means of producion the rulers are. Communism is communal owernship of both the means and fruits of production, and is actually virtually identical to anarchy, and relies on human being being better than they are now. For this reason communists think that communism can only be reached through socialism, starting out authoritarianistically like sweden and becoming more anarchistic, with the goernment controlling less and less and the people directly controlling more and more.

    look it up on wikipedia

    By Blogger jesuslazer, at 8:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares