Socialism Leads To Violence

[Chris]

Lol, there is no such thing as "democratic socialism", it's oxymoronic. Emphasis on moronic.

From Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won't Be the One to Finally Make Socialism Work:

The lack of media accountability for Ocasio-Cortez is not due to temporary amnesia by American journalists; these people are True Believers when it comes to socialism, and especially its political cousin, democratic socialism. As I have written before, electing economic “planners” via majority votes solves none of the intractable problems of economic calculation that Ludwig von Mises pointed out nearly a century ago. The term “democratic” does not suddenly allow the moribund doctrines of socialism to come alive and actually make sense. However, to most American journalists, “democratic” covers a multitude of errors and magically transforms socialism into something it never has been.

Putting democracy on socialism is like putting lipstick on a pig.

[Chris]

I guess you forgot about the 1960's, what's been goin down these days and our own civl war... all that happened in "The Beacon on the Hill": the eternal flame of capitalism...

I doubt you could articulate what happened. But here's your civil war, from the same link as above:

When one steps back and takes a broader look at the Ocasio-Cortez phenomenon – the belief that a political rookie somehow can transform socialism, a system known for failure and repression, into paradise by just her sheer force of presence – one must better understand the current intellectual landscape that progressives have created. We are seeing a huge clash of visions and worldviews, not to mention a difference in the interpretation of what we see (or don’t see) in front of us.

[countryboy]

From Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won't Be the One to Finally Make Socialism Work:



Putting democracy on socialism is like putting lipstick on a pig.

It's worse than that. Democracy and socialism cannot exist together.

[Chris]

It's worse than that. Democracy and socialism cannot exist together.

Right, it’s but a mere facade.

[Mister D]

If only because the will of the people is predetermined and unchanging.

[William]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwa9BloFLOE

Interesting (but not very). Why should the opinion of a female radio/TV shock jock be considered the Gospel according to St. Conservative? Both socialism and capitalism lead to violence if taken to extremes - but so do Fascism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (and, I dunno, but maybe Hinduism and Buddhism as well). When any of these -isms are adopted at the national level, the people in power will use any means - including propaganda and violence - to maintain that ideology and power (and usually, to benefit themselves).

Socialism, as an economic system cannot work because human beings are too selfish to allow anybody to dictate how much they can have - even if it seems for the good of society. So really we have to call a system which involves looking after the needy, something else. I don't see social services and social justice as people getting free stuff that my parents paid for - I see it as making my society a happier, more fair, and safer place. But that's not socialism as defined by the economic system. So we should just stop all this capitalism vs socialism feel-good rubbish - and see the value in combining both ideologies (such as many Northern European countries have done).

[Chris]

Interesting (but not very). Why should the opinion of a female radio/TV shock jock be considered the Gospel according to St. Conservative? Both socialism and capitalism lead to violence if taken to extremes - but so do Fascism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (and, I dunno, but maybe Hinduism and Buddhism as well). When any of these -isms are adopted at the national level, the people in power will use any means - including propaganda and violence - to maintain that ideology and power (and usually, to benefit themselves).

Socialism, as an economic system cannot work because human beings are too selfish to allow anybody to dictate how much they can have - even if it seems for the good of society. So really we have to call a system which involves looking after the needy, something else. I don't see social services and social justice as people getting free stuff that my parents paid for - I see it as making my society a happier, more fair, and safer place. But that's not socialism as defined by the economic system. So we should just stop all this capitalism vs socialism feel-good rubbish - and see the value in combining both ideologies (such as many Northern European countries have done).

She's as qualified as anyone is, as you, for instance, or me. It's the message that matters. Socialism leads to violence: the means of production owned by the collective demands a central authority and that authority turns violently against anyone who doesn't toe the party line, as witnessed by those she interviewed.

It's not a matter of extremes. It's just the way socialism works, er, fails.

Capitalism leads to violence, really, how? What corporation uses violent force against consumers?

People are too selfish for socialism to work? I don't think you understand what socialism is if you say that. Or do you mean socialist leaders who live selfishly wealthy off the backs of the people?

Capitalism is the only system that actually looks after the needs of the people.

Some Europeans tried socialism. They'd gotten rich by capitalist means of trade. They tried socialism and democratically voted them out.

[Chris]

If only because the will of the people is predetermined and unchanging.

It was once that way when not only the people but the rules were subservient to customary law. Then kings decided to make law and the modern state emerged. Now, in modern democracy, anyone can become king and lawmaker.

[Dr. Who]

Based on the way things are going, AI is going to take over most bureaucratic occupations and many scientific occupations, while robotics will eventually take over virtually all manual work. We already have robots building other robots. Technology is advancing so exponentially that we are barely aware of many of the advances and every year that passes less and less of what we rely on for employment has a future. What is the future of capitalism in a world where most of the occupations have been replaced by technology?

[Peter1469]

Socialism, as an economic system cannot work because human beings are too selfish to allow anybody to dictate how much they can have - even if it seems for the good of society.

That is not reality. Look at the first Pilgrams to land in America. They started out 100% socialist. No property rights. Each gets the same share of whatever is produced. It failed. Read the rest.