Marxism working as predicted...

[mistermack]

Obama is not a socialist, he is a lifetime hard-core Marxist. He was raised and educated by Marxists. His friends are Marxists. His ideology is Marxism, and he plays a Progressive to the world in order to fool the useful idiots of Marxism into thinking he's not a Marxist, but he is.

He's your president though. He's the winner, and you're the loser.
Adapt or die.

[Tero]

What would Jesus do? Sounds like he is working in Venezuela.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

And that's how socialism always devolves into poverty, misery, starvation and death. Always. Every single time, sooner or later, because it must do so as a function of basic human nature.

This doom-laden prediction is driven by pure ideology, not rational social or economic prediction. You are assuming that countries with slightly left of centre governments inevitably slide into full blown socialism, in spite of the wishes of their people. Simply, such countries have reached a stable political equilibrium which suits their current voting population. Governments which attempt to push past that point are defeated at the next election by slightly right of centre parties. Simples...

[Seth]

Obama is not a socialist, he is a lifetime hard-core Marxist. He was raised and educated by Marxists. His friends are Marxists. His ideology is Marxism, and he plays a Progressive to the world in order to fool the useful idiots of Marxism into thinking he's not a Marxist, but he is.

He's your president though. He's the winner, and you're the loser.
Adapt or die.

Or, because no President dares to try to hold on to power when his term is up because of the armed citizenry, wait another year and some and someone else will take office.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

And that's how socialism always devolves into poverty, misery, starvation and death. Always. Every single time, sooner or later, because it must do so as a function of basic human nature.

This doom-laden prediction is driven by pure ideology, not rational social or economic prediction. You are assuming that countries with slightly left of centre governments inevitably slide into full blown socialism, in spite of the wishes of their people. Simply, such countries have reached a stable political equilibrium which suits their current voting population. Governments which attempt to push past that point are defeated at the next election by slightly right of centre parties. Simples...

Right up until the dependent class outnumber the productive class, at which point they can, and inevitably will, outvote the interests of capitalism in order to secure to themselves their dependent class due.

Your faith in human nature is naive in the extreme.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth wrote:

And that's how socialism always devolves into poverty, misery, starvation and death. Always. Every single time, sooner or later, because it must do so as a function of basic human nature.

This doom-laden prediction is driven by pure ideology, not rational social or economic prediction. You are assuming that countries with slightly left of centre governments inevitably slide into full blown socialism, in spite of the wishes of their people. Simply, such countries have reached a stable political equilibrium which suits their current voting population. Governments which attempt to push past that point are defeated at the next election by slightly right of centre parties. Simples...

Right up until the dependent class outnumber the productive class, at which point they can, and inevitably will, outvote the interests of capitalism in order to secure to themselves their dependent class due.

Your faith in human nature is naive in the extreme.

There is a reason that the "dependent class" are such - they don't organise! They vote the way their parents did for the most part - like everyone else!

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Right up until the dependent class outnumber the productive class, at which point they can, and inevitably will, outvote the interests of capitalism in order to secure to themselves their dependent class due.

So you think it is an inevitable historical law that societies which have a working social security system will have an inexorable increase in the number of welfare recipients until chaos ensues?

This is not a rational prediction, it is an ideological rant. Interestingly, the foremost proponents of inevitable historical processes are marxists (the real kind)...

(just in case you didn't realise it, their historical law theory is deeply flawed... )

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

And that's how socialism always devolves into poverty, misery, starvation and death. Always. Every single time, sooner or later, because it must do so as a function of basic human nature.

This doom-laden prediction is driven by pure ideology, not rational social or economic prediction. You are assuming that countries with slightly left of centre governments inevitably slide into full blown socialism, in spite of the wishes of their people. Simply, such countries have reached a stable political equilibrium which suits their current voting population. Governments which attempt to push past that point are defeated at the next election by slightly right of centre parties. Simples...

Right up until the dependent class outnumber the productive class, at which point they can, and inevitably will, outvote the interests of capitalism in order to secure to themselves their dependent class due.

Your faith in human nature is naive in the extreme.

There is a reason that the "dependent class" are such - they don't organise! They vote the way their parents did for the most part - like everyone else!

No, they vote the way that the Marxist elite in charge tell them to vote, or they go hungry...or get killed. You don't think anybody really wanted to vote for Kim Jong Un do you?

That's precisely why Marxists want to increase, not decrease poverty and dependence. It is the surest way to keep the proles in line.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Right up until the dependent class outnumber the productive class, at which point they can, and inevitably will, outvote the interests of capitalism in order to secure to themselves their dependent class due.

So you think it is an inevitable historical law that societies which have a working social security system will have an inexorable increase in the number of welfare recipients until chaos ensues?

Yes.

This is not a rational prediction, it is an ideological rant. Interestingly, the foremost proponents of inevitable historical processes are marxists (the real kind)...

(just in case you didn't realise it, their historical law theory is deeply flawed... )

Show me a nation with a "working social security system" and I'll show you a nation teetering on the brink of economic collapse...sooner or later...when the OPM runs out and the takers outnumber the payers. That's true even in the US today. Our social security system will be bankrupt in just a few years, just like the UK's. Some small nations may hang on a bit longer because of abundant natural resources they can peddle on the free market, but the end game is always the same, without exception.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You really are more bonkers than usual tonight, Seth. Not taking your meds?

[Seth]

You really are more bonkers than usual tonight, Seth. Not taking your meds?

Just speaking harsh truths. TANSTAAFL. You can't have more people drawing money from social security than you have people working to contribute to it for very long. Poke a hole in the lifeboat and it'll soon sink.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You really are more bonkers than usual tonight, Seth. Not taking your meds?

Just speaking harsh truths. TANSTAAFL. You can't have more people drawing money from social security than you have people working to contribute to it for very long. Poke a hole in the lifeboat and it'll soon sink.

You get trouble when there are more people starving in the streets than working too.

[Ian]

He's not speaking harsh truths, he's speaking harsh fears. The whole conservative mindset is based on fear, so the ones at the far end of the bell curve are downright paranoid about everything.

[Seth]

You really are more bonkers than usual tonight, Seth. Not taking your meds?

Just speaking harsh truths. TANSTAAFL. You can't have more people drawing money from social security than you have people working to contribute to it for very long. Poke a hole in the lifeboat and it'll soon sink.

You get trouble when there are more people starving in the streets than working too.

Of course you do. But the solution is not to bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain or kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Government cannot bring people out of poverty and starvation by taking what is needed from others. All that does is make everyone equally poor and hungry when the OPM runs out, as it eventually must.

To keep a society prosperous so that people do not fall into poverty and starvation government's duty is to foster a regulatory climate that both supports the efforts of entrepreneurs to create wealth and protects the society from the initiation of force or fraud by anyone, which results in all boats rising on the tide of prosperity. Governments that punish economic success, or that ignore crime and corruption merely kill the very people and spirit that is required to solve such problems.

Marxism is exceedingly good at killing economies and entrepreneurship because it thinks that proletarian equality of outcomes is more important than capitalistic equality of opportunity and the creation of wealth through excellence and hard work.

[Seth]

He's not speaking harsh truths, he's speaking harsh fears. The whole conservative mindset is based on fear, so the ones at the far end of the bell curve are downright paranoid about everything.

It's not paranoid to see that Marxism is out to destroy our way of life, because it's blatantly obvious that's exactly what it's trying to do...and unfortunately all too often succeeding at doing.

Fear of Marxist Progressivism is a perfectly rational and well-documented fear that everyone ought to pay attention to and deal with.