Socialism Sucks #1
Socialism Sucks #1
Socialism Sucks is my new weekly post. I will aim for each post to be short and an easy read. Let me know of more reasons why socialism sucks! I know that there will be lots to write about...
Selfishness
Socialism has forever been a fight against the "greedy capitalist", and the fight for equality and well-being for all (although we know how that really turns out). But socialism is, and quite obviously so, the most greedy and selfish ideology of all, and its not hard to see why.
The simple mindset that is manifested in socialists can be easily explained as this:
"I want, I want, give me, give me"
Socialists are in a continuous struggle to take from people who have things. In present time, it is the state from which they demand from.
- Free healthcare
- Welfare
- Higher tax rates for the rich or the high income earner (so that the government can afford more of the above)
During the Russian revolution, socialists demanded things from the wealthy. These people included business owners, shareholders in major industries, and the government, however less so as it was not as prominent at the time.
"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money that you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." - Thomas Sowell
The socialist mindset creates people who never look to themselves in order to acquire wealth, but instead look to others. Others who they can steal from. Today, the government is heavily socialized, its obvious. Government entitles citizens to certain things, and eventually these entitlements are considered "rights", and many leftist politicians today use this as a major driving point for their agenda.
"I believe healthcare is a RIGHT, not a Privilege." - Bernie Sanders
In summary, socialism is greedy because it teaches people to demand more, rather than to share more. Capitalism teaches one to work hard, be independent, take care of oneself, as well as others, and that they should earn what they receive. Socialists are always looking at where they can spend, but they are never looking at where they can earn, and their is no spending without earning. This is the ultimate paradox in their ideology and is the reason why all socialist states eventually collapse.
#SocialismSucks
#FMCR(Free Market Capitalism Rules)
My Blog: Sailormann
"There is no difference between Communism and Socialism, except in the same ultimate end: Communism proposes to enslave men by force, Socialism - by the vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." ~ Ayn Rand
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
It's to long - summarize it to me.
Tldr?
Smdh.
No communism in russia, only state crapitalism, ie socialism.
Its the second s in ussr.
Russia was socialist. But read this quote:
Lenin, and others involved, planned to achieve communism using socialism as the first stage. This was why the government was so involved in the process at the start.
Yes, this was all hashed out in the 1860's by bakunin and marx.
You see which one the elites chose to make sure we were aware of.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/franz-mehring-the-bakunin-marx-split-in-the-1st-international
This one is long.
I read most of it and I think I get the gist. The article is right about the absence of anarcho-communism, or "true communism", as I imagine you would call it. However, the communist party, was by all means, communist. They assumed that communism would not come to exist if the population wasn't given a little bit of "encouragement". They achieved communism by using the state as a medium between the people and their so-called "shared property". The article most definitely has a point, however I would not agree with the fact that the government intended to "own" everything for themselves, but rather that they intended to own things on behalf of the people. Upon the arrival of Stalin, the USSR became less of a state with a "leader", and more of a state with a "dictator". It is important to understand how this ties in with the struggling economic situation that the country was in. Stalin did not want the world to think that communism was failing in Russia, so he committed the Holodomor in order to export more wheat, and to show how much the country was overproducing, when they were in fact underproducing. Communism did exist in Russia, but it was steered away from the interests of the people, in favor of the interests of the reputation of Communism.
I feel as though this article attempts to blame the fails of communism on capitalism, which was not present what-so-ever in Russia (hence the collapse of the country).
They called themselves communist to cloud the term in the minds of the public, they were tools that served the banksters in this regard.
They never got past being socialists, or state crapitalusts.
Which makes them not communist, by definition.
How is crapitalism at the hands of a dictator communism?
If the state is the agent of the people in that it holds the crapital, how is that communist?
Its not, but heaven forbid we drop the indoctrination forced on us under the guise of education?
I prefer to take back the term.
Just as libertarian will have to come back to the anarchists, too.
I agree that they never got past being socialist. The state took the task of achieving communism into their own hands, and that led to them being the medium between the people and the state-owned property. The state never "dissolved" as Marx said, meaning that by-the-book communism was never achieved. Either way, any form of socialization isn't doing any good for society, whatsoever. Even if Russia achieved absolute, anarcho-communism, they would fail. Simple economic principles prove this point over and over again, not to mention all of the failed socialist states.
Most of the attempts have been bombed into submission by crapitalust bombs.
https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/
Capitalism is not a system of governance. It is simply a word used to describe a free market system working without interference. It is naturally anarchistic. There is currently no capitalism present anywhere in the world, because there is not a place where a free market currently exists.
Anarchism works, as long as people know that capitalism is not the problem. In an anarchist society, anyone is free to form a commune, as long as that commune is based on voluntary principles and doesn't strip people of their liberties (as they have done in the past). In an anarchist society, anyone is free to start a business, and create wealth and capital that will benefit all who take part in free trade. The failures of so-called "anarchism" have been due to the fact that anarchism has always been founded under socialist principles, which is why they have never succeeded. Socialism is an involuntary system, and it will never obtain the full support of the people.
Those markets inevitably devolve into rule by force.
The havenots are at the mercy of the haves.
Not historicaly accurate.
Proudhon and bakunin both originated anarchism and hated socialism because it required rule by force and therefore contradicted anarchist principle.
If you care to do the reading go here: theanarchistlibrary.org, look for the author link at the bottom, pj proudhon and m bakunin.
Yep, socialism sucks, for sure.
Communism is much better.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
Holy horse knockers!...another right anarchist. There must be like a couple dozen of us now. Good to know your here, will be following along with this series.
a couple of dozen and one..me too.
Ha, didn't know if you went full anarchist....had my suspicions though.
;)
I'm MORE anarchist than you would believe.
I believe you...
Thanks for supporting me!
Happy to ;)
Upvote for me please? https://steemit.com/news/@bible.com/6h36cq