« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Socialism…. and they still think this will work?

By: pseudonym (Diary)  |  June 12th, 2012 at 01:06 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I was an infantryman for quite some time, and with the little formal education I have, could figure this out. Why is it that so many politicians independent, democrat, and republican cannot…. are they not supposed to the leaders of the free world? I hope that my posts are acceptable. If they are devoid of anything of substance or relevancy please let me know. I am still new to this.

The far left in their typical fashion continues the argument of class warfare. The communist manifesto theorizes of an epic struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, where the working class proletariat are in constant struggle with the ruling class- bourgeoisie. This theory of communism, socialism, and the like has been disproven throughout modern history. As we see currently this is made evident in our times by the governments of Western Europe. Yet, President Obama continues his rhetorical arguments for what is nothing more than socialism. President Obama, quite poorly argues on each opportunity that may arise, for his socialist prerogative. This same false rhetoric is repeated by leftist and even some moderate democrats time and time again.

Yet, if viewed objectively the argument for socialism is quite ridiculous. In particular, if it is compared to some of the United States founding principles. The basic argument for any socialist model of government is to redistribute wealth. It is understood that without wealth that has been previously created this objective cannot be accomplished. Once wealth has been or is continually being redistributed the amount of wealth to be distributed stagnates. Destroying wealth creators will destroy them and those whom reap the benefits of redistributive wealth. Once wealth is no longer created it likewise is no longer available to redistribute. When this occurs, despotism and despair is all that is left of socialist societies.

Philosophically, the goal of socialism is exactly what? Socialism is a mechanism to secure wealth for those whom are “deemed” disadvantaged and unable to leave the ranks of the “proletariat”, by theft from others. Socialism is best described by President Obama in a June 8, 2012 private fund raiser in Los Angeles, California.

“And so we came together to affirm and assert that we were going to restore that basic sense that in America, everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules.”

(Translated into the truth, we will force everyone to be exactly the same in every aspect unless we deem you worthy to be included in our ruling or privileged classes, defeating the entire rational for socialism.)

Socialism may have been a logical application to serfdom but not in our wonderful form of government when properly applied. The American founders, knowingly or unknowingly, addressed this “inequality” problem socialism attempts to rectify. Socialism in the end merely secures wealth for individuals, as stated before, by theft. A constitutional republic ensures that an individual is secure in their property, liberty, and life. Not through means of redistribution though unwarranted acquisition via government or unlawfully by other individuals. Quite the contrary, our constitutional republic ensures the labor and wealth of the individual, which was amassed through legitimate means, is secured to the individual.

I tire of comments President Obama and other leftist spew out in regards to the conservative thinking. Comments such as this, again made in his private fund raiser, on the 8th of June. “It says if you were a child born into poverty; pull pull yourself up by your own bootstraps — even if you don’t have boots.” (No that’s not a typo)

I hate to sound arrogant but, I was born into borderline poverty. My parents, through hard work kept us above that “poverty line”. Faced with no ability to pay for a college education, I entered the U.S. Marines as a private making 900 dollars a month. 15 years later, after ten years in the Marines, and now I am living well. I am providing a better life than I had for my children. This was not due to a helping hand from the government (other than the chance to enlist). My wealth is the fruit of my own labor. The sense that I have of personal responsibility, work ethic, duty, and rugged individualism was directly responsible for my success. Not from the labor of someone else.

It would be wise of Mr. Romney to speak of this more. The overwhelming majority of Americans have a thirst for this. It has been lacking in our collective society for too many years. Not simply to speak of it, but to have it reflected in their actions. To aggressively attack the socialist movement, with sound arguments for a constitutional republic. Our arguments, viewed both subjectively and objectively, (which I hope the vast majority of Americans can still differentiate the two) can only be countered with vain emotional arguments, divisive conduct, and class warfare. I pray the nation’s people can see through the left’s baseless and logically devoid arguments.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    My high school history professor said that communism is a great idea, but it’s not realistic; it’s not comprehensive of human nature.

    A true socialist or communist society has never existed. Human history has never seen a society in which all people live comfortably–ie with all their needs met–because those with wealth willingly share with those who don’t have wealth.

    I have to resist the temptation to describe humanity in overly simplistic terms. Humanity has been around for something like a quarter million years. For most of that time, the conditions under which people lived were vastly different than they’ve been for the last 150 years or so. People didn’t expect so much because so much of what we now expect didn’t exist.

    From an even broader perspective, I’ve read that the earth’s climate has changed routinely and dramatically for most of its history, but unusually stable climate conditions over the past 15,000 years have allowed humanity to flourish.

    That’s just the last 15,000 years. For about 235,000 years before that, climate upheavals prevented humanity from developing. People fought with the elements to merely survive for a decade or two. That was all they could expect.

    Now people expect to live for 100 years, and if they can’t, they blame somebody.

    As recently as a few thousand years ago, a rock hut, a fire and a little coarse food were enough. Now, people want a home with electricity, two or more cars, a television in every room, cell phones, computers, gainful employment and enough spare cash for vacations and a plethora of generally unnecessary material goods. We’ve created and are still creating a growing number of needs and wants. People expect to have all their needs and wants fulfilled, and if they’re not fulfilled, the people want somebody to blame.

    I wonder how realistic that is in the face of the vastness of human history during which most of those needs and wants didn’t even exist: weren’t even dreams.

    Communism and socialism speak to a utopia in which all needs and wants are met, but thus far in history, the utopia has been more of a selling point: an unfulfillable promise made by despotic usurpers and believed by masses of ignorant people who’ve quickly forgotten–or who perhaps never knew–how dramatically the human condition has changed in just the last 5,000 years. They all want this wonderful life; they don’t consider how hard it has always been for humans to survive, let alone thrive: let alone have leisure time, excess cash and their choice of goods and services.

    Their ignorance makes them susceptible to the utopian promise: “you can have it all, and we’ll all live together in peace.” They believe, and they support the despotic promisers who, once they gain power, set about denying the promised utopia and accusing those who believed in it of being selfish. When their supporters, feeling betrayed, revolted, that’s when the tanks and soldiers came, and the elections stopped, and the mass murders began.

    People seem to forget that despots who used the socialist/communist utopia promise to gain power are responsible for 100 million murders in the 20th century alone. The despots made the promise. They knew they couldn’t keep it, but they knew people would believe it; it sounds so nice. They knew they could ride that promise to power and, once in power, they could use brutal military force to suppress those who’d supported them. They could suspend or rig elections. They could stay in power for all of their lives, and they could take as much of the wealth–which they’d previously promised to share–for themselves.

    That’s the history of “socialism” and “communism”: an empty, unfulfillable promise made by despots to ignorant masses. Neither socialism nor communism in their true forms have ever existed except in the minds of unrealistic dreamers and the mouths of immoral control freaks who’d say and do anything to serve themselves: living, breathing antitheses of the promises they’ve made.

    The socialist/communist promise has always been nothing more than a con-man’s method for serving himself. It is, literally, too good to be true; humanity is not that good.

    We decry liars, but we love their lies. “Yeah, baby, the Rolex is real, the Benz and the beach-front condo are paid for, and I believe a man’s role is to serve the woman he loves, and I love you, and would you like another rum and coke? It’s all yours. All you have to do is say ‘yes’.”

    So, you’re absolutely right: communism and socialism can’t work. But all you have to do is point to those who, in the last 100 years, in Russia, Germany, Cuba, China and North Korea, have used the socialist/communist promise to gain power.

    Point to Obama’s pal Bill Ayers: the former Weatherman who spoke of a “proletariat dictatorship” in the United States, and the elimination of an estimated 25 million Americans who wouldn’t succumb to his rule. (It’s all in his book, “Prairie Fire.”) Ayers came from a very wealthy family and was no doubt–if I might venture into armchair psychology–absorbed by hateful rebellion against his parents. (His dad was president and CEO of Commonwealth-Edison.) He might’ve thought he was rebelling against his parents, but as it turns out, his dreams and aspirations of controlling the entire country at all costs would’ve made them proud. He was the “ruthless businessman” his father likely hoped he’d be.

    These are the people behind the socialist/communist promise in the United States today. They use the sweet promise to con and persuade ignorant people. But beneath that sweet persuasion are people who merely want control.

    To me, it becomes more a matter of psychology, and human morality, than economics. Who are the people who must have control and wealth? Where did they come from, and what are they willing to do to feed those empty, vacuous regions inside of themselves where should reside a soul? Give them the regimes they want, and they will always have control. But in a free market, where anybody can rise up through economic classes, they feel threatened. They fear freedom, and their idea of “peaceful coexistence” is a militaristic dictatorship in which they can protect themselves against a million imagined enemies.

    They will always be with us. We will never be free of them, and technology has granted them the power to wreak their destruction.