Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Ustwo · 08-22-2007, 08:13 AM

Socialism is a lie.

While it presents itself as an 'advanced' type of society, its appeal is to the most basic nature of man, and that is sloth and jealousy.

It is very appealing to lazy intellectuals who are jealous of wealth they don't poses but feel they deserve. Being very smart in a job that pays poorly is irksome when you feel superior to those who's pursuits earn them wealth. Undoubtedly this is a contributing factor to the number of college professors who seem to rally around the socialist banner. Wealth being relative, they would rather someone else doesn't have it and that it was 'fairly distributed'.

It is likewise appealing to some members of the mega-rich. These people have more wealth than they can spend in several life times. There is some guilt involved, and there is some dark self serving nature too, with socialism making it harder for new people to join their club. The classic example of this is a limousine liberal like Barbara Streisand.

Joining the ranks would be the ‘bleeding hearts’. These are people who think you need to give a man a fish, and when he fails to fish for his own meal, give him another fish. They seriously want to help their fellow man (with other peoples money) and don’t seem to grasp that hand outs are a poor investment in the future.

Then there are the prols. Socialism is just, on paper to them, free money. Its a self serving system. I'm poor so you pay for me. They are fueled in part by politicians who convince them that society owes them something just for breathing.

Finally you have the politicians. Socialism is their tool to power. It can be a powerful coalition with a very large voter base in the prols and more than a good share of the intellectual effete. They create vote plantations among the poor with welfare type systems, while pretending its about compassion or fairness. Its just vote buying.

This is opposed by the middle class (minus bleeding hearts), the working rich, and more libertarian oriented thinkers.

Socialism is a self defeating system in the end, which creates a highly stratified society. It can only maintain itself for so long off the production of the middle and upper class before the incentive to put the kind of effort it takes to be in the middle class is lost. As more and more people take, and there is less to take, the services provided start to shrink. This has already been happening with the European socialist model, and it will continue to do so with time.

There is of course a sustainable level of socialism, much like a parasite that doesn’t kill its host, socialism can exist if it allows enough economic freedom to justify the effort it takes to generate new wealth. The problem is that in a democratic system, where the public knows it can vote itself money from the treasury, human nature takes sway.

Socialism could work in a sort of benign dictatorship situation, but that too only would work in theory, as we all know what the end result of such systems appears to be with millions upon millions killed by their own socialist governments in the name of progress.

In the end though, socialism will always be around, its emotional appeal is too strong, too easy to fool people into thinking that they are helping, to easy to get people to think they are getting something for nothing, to easy to make college students in the coffee shop who think they are superior to most men yet are less productive in society than the waitress serving them, that THIS time, it will work.

And oh yes….

I’m back.

08-22-2007, 08:13 AM	#94 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Socialism is a lie. While it presents itself as an 'advanced' type of society, its appeal is to the most basic nature of man, and that is sloth and jealousy. It is very appealing to lazy intellectuals who are jealous of wealth they don't poses but feel they deserve. Being very smart in a job that pays poorly is irksome when you feel superior to those who's pursuits earn them wealth. Undoubtedly this is a contributing factor to the number of college professors who seem to rally around the socialist banner. Wealth being relative, they would rather someone else doesn't have it and that it was 'fairly distributed'. It is likewise appealing to some members of the mega-rich. These people have more wealth than they can spend in several life times. There is some guilt involved, and there is some dark self serving nature too, with socialism making it harder for new people to join their club. The classic example of this is a limousine liberal like Barbara Streisand. Joining the ranks would be the ‘bleeding hearts’. These are people who think you need to give a man a fish, and when he fails to fish for his own meal, give him another fish. They seriously want to help their fellow man (with other peoples money) and don’t seem to grasp that hand outs are a poor investment in the future. Then there are the prols. Socialism is just, on paper to them, free money. Its a self serving system. I'm poor so you pay for me. They are fueled in part by politicians who convince them that society owes them something just for breathing. Finally you have the politicians. Socialism is their tool to power. It can be a powerful coalition with a very large voter base in the prols and more than a good share of the intellectual effete. They create vote plantations among the poor with welfare type systems, while pretending its about compassion or fairness. Its just vote buying. This is opposed by the middle class (minus bleeding hearts), the working rich, and more libertarian oriented thinkers. Socialism is a self defeating system in the end, which creates a highly stratified society. It can only maintain itself for so long off the production of the middle and upper class before the incentive to put the kind of effort it takes to be in the middle class is lost. As more and more people take, and there is less to take, the services provided start to shrink. This has already been happening with the European socialist model, and it will continue to do so with time. There is of course a sustainable level of socialism, much like a parasite that doesn’t kill its host, socialism can exist if it allows enough economic freedom to justify the effort it takes to generate new wealth. The problem is that in a democratic system, where the public knows it can vote itself money from the treasury, human nature takes sway. Socialism could work in a sort of benign dictatorship situation, but that too only would work in theory, as we all know what the end result of such systems appears to be with millions upon millions killed by their own socialist governments in the name of progress. In the end though, socialism will always be around, its emotional appeal is too strong, too easy to fool people into thinking that they are helping, to easy to get people to think they are getting something for nothing, to easy to make college students in the coffee shop who think they are superior to most men yet are less productive in society than the waitress serving them, that THIS time, it will work. And oh yes…. I’m back. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.