Why Socialism Is on the Rise
It took capitalism half a century to come back from the Great Depression. It's taken socialism half that time to come back from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In New York City, avowed socialist Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared that his goal is to take “dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities” – the gap between rich and poor. In Seattle, newly elected socialist city Councilmember Kshama Sawant addressed supporters, explaining, “I wear the badge of socialist with honor.” To great acclaim from the left, columnist Jesse Myerson of Rolling Stone put out a column telling millennials that they ought to fight for government-guaranteed employment, a universal basic income, collectivization of private property, nationalization of private assets and public banks.
Ben Shapiro makes some good points that may help some folks argue with the leftists. See URL for full essay.
Ben Shapiro makes some good points that may help some folks argue with the leftists. See URL for full essay.
SOURCE URL: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22583
It is not new to have the socialist agenda pushed from the White House. Bush Sr. talked of his "thousand points of light", code for one world socialism. Hillary Clinton had already united with the UN, and was starting to ask people if they had unused bedrooms, with the idea government could use them for homeless people. It was during this time that Portland tried UN Agenda 21 type methods to try to move people out of rural areas and into the city, so the rural areas could be rewilded. They refused to give building permits outside city limits, used population density to say how much yard a person could have, or risk not getting permits for such things as water heaters. Portland and Seattle have always been hotbeads of socialism, just as North Dakota had an active and obvious communist party working there when I lived there. Wisconsin, once the center for communist party activity by the CPUSA, remains extremely liberal.
However, they are making it hip to be a socialist now. Where once, Hollywood actors were war heroes, today, they are socialists. Kids don't want to grow up, but they want to emulate these immature chronological adults. I doubt any of them seriously get beyond copying them, to the point of reasoned thinking. I am convinced none of them think of morality per se when they embrace socialism. Talking points, that is what they deal in.
Capitalism needs no justification. It does not need a mantle of morality. Liberals disdain religion, except for Gaia type worship, they are not really into morality when they follow plans like Agenda 21, it is about control.
If a man is using his brain and reason to exchange value for value, no excuses needed. If liberals don't see it, that is what led to Galt's Gulch in AS. Stupidity is a personal choice to many citizens are making lately.
While Capitalists have abandoned the morality and successes of the rights of the individual, the Socialist have kept on with the path of destroying the middle class, therefore creating more perceived need for promised help and relief that can only be obtained from Socialism's enlightened programs. Capitalism is an economic theory and Socialism can best be defined as political in nature. Socialism's goal is not an economical leveling as discussed in intellectual terms, but is directed at subjugating the rights of the individual to the power of the state. It is about power and control. Economics is simply a prong on the methodology to attain that goal.
Any attempt to argue the benefits of the economics of Capitalism over Socialism immediately encounters the self doubts and lower self esteem of general society as well the complexity intrinsic to the understanding of economic issues at the individual level. In order for Capitalism to gain traction, it must build upon the benefits of self determination, freedom from - and freedom to, and opportunity to the middle class individual to not just succeed, but to sustain. It must cast centralized technocrat control as fumbling, inept, wrong, and harmful to that same middle class individual.
But Capitalism can't grow until it casts off the desire to compromise, to fit in, to sustain today's profits while tossing to the winds tomorrows gain. It must also develop a language that is more common to the general population and is directed to the fears and aspirations of that middle class individual.
I'm feeling disjointed right now and need to think more on this.
I am disconnected from your last paragraph, after which you confess to being "disjointed." (ouch! I hate when that happens).
Socialists complain that firms are only interested in quarterly results. That fails on two grounds. First, past prices do not determine future prices. The present is the only reality. More deeply, successful firms with longevity do look to the far future. They invest about 15% in R&D.
Compromise is one of the big reasons that the socialists have gained so much ground in the past century.
"The most widely known business that emerged from the Amana Society is Amana Refrigeration, Inc. This national leader in the production of refrigerators was founded by an Amana native, George C. Foerstner at the time of the Great Change. The first beverage cooler, designed for a businessman in nearby Iowa City in 1934, was built by skilled craftsmen at the Middle Amana woolen mill. In the decades that followed, the mill became the site of this large, now private, plant producing refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and in 1965 introduced a new product--the Amana Radarange Microwave Oven. Today, the 19th-century woolen mill smoke stack still rises over the modern plant." -- http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/amana/text....
It is indeed true. However, it is a consequence, not a primary. To sell capitalism on that basis is to undermine the foundations. It might be an interesting way to open a discussion with a communalist. I am not sure how productive that will prove to be. You might have (or had) some success via that route. I do not perceive it as a strategy.
::yawn::
I'm sorry, where were we?
I understand the primary. but the primary argument made to a true socialist believer falls on deaf ears. I am not negotiating I am luring out the doubtful. shoot-true believers take work! bait and switch is not the plan. I argue from reason but I build philosophy with another carefully and at the right time
First: People get the government they diserve. (Corollary: If you do not rebel, you accept.)
Second: Socialism is to the human society what cancer is to living tissue - a degenaration of all the most fundamental proceeses of life: freedom, family, work, education, entertainment, government. Just as cancer kills living, socialism poisons society to death.
From its beginnings in mid 19th century, Socialism has become an intoxication of the unthinking, uneducated and incapable, administered by power mongers, utopians and courtiers.
Ultimate test will be when we find out, by trial and error, as all true research must do, if the craving for freedom is truly an intrinsic property of humans. I believe that the more or less recorded history of the last 6000 years has shown without the doubt that it is. The same history, I believe, shows that the advancement is not linear and that there are movements backwords. Remember the Dark Ages in Europe? Who says that we are not at the beginning of another such? Apparently, the carnage that was the 20th century is not enough to persuade contless utopians, particularly in the academy, not to more or less naivly support the power mongers who are always present everywhere.
My own opinion is that the fight is over the minds of people, and my faith is with the Founding Fathers who believed that life, liberty and persuit of happiness are inalienable rights of humans. To me, that implies that humans, by
their very nature, crave freedom.
Does any of this blabbing make any sense to you all?
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/22583
Long ago, a libertarian named Jerry Emanuelson published an algebraic proof of Ricardo's Law of Association. He showed with high school algebra, that even if you can do two tasks better than someone else, it is still more productive for you to divide your labor and exchange it, regardless of who does what.
The point is that without someone else, you could do all of it yourself. If someone else is there to trade with - even if they are not as accomplished as you - you both can benefit.
But that is NOT the moral justification of capitalism.
Remember that too often, the mass of humanity reject the work of the creative genius. Does that true producer have no justification for their own existence?
See the topic on "The Creative Genius" under Philosophy from two months ago:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1b...
Once you get them to see the inherent contradictions in their belief-NOW is the time to discuss natural rights. NOW you can build the framework explaining the moral case for Capitalism. I totally read the article from that perspective. Shapiro has been clear about reaching out to young people in particular and frankly Objectivism loses that war. Many youth read AS but then reject Objectivism. That's because they are already true believers in altruism. they can't escape it-it's taught either explicitly or implicitly in every class up to college and most classes in college.
As for the 10 commandment part, I usually ignore that stuff, but it is an effective argument to point out government is not a god-most see the absurdity of that when presented with it.
However, I also do not believe that their is theory of economics that is consistent with Objectivism. It certainly is not Austrian Economics which is what most Objectivists lean towards. Austrian economics is based on the idea that reason is limited and people's economic decisions are subjective.
They just forget to mention the chef.
Objectivism solves the problem with finer granularity.
Yes, reason is limited. So is experience. That is the reason why is it important to note that just as they are not omnipotent, neither are they impotent. Limited as our knowledge and experience may be, our choices can be subjective (whim, or mystical) or objective (pro-life).
I do agree with you 100% that the "conservative theory of economics" is not consistent with Objectivism. I mean, you can find easily an array of "Biblical Abundance" preachers. As in the main link here, you find them justifying capitalism on altruistic grounds. I have to grant at least the Parable of the Talents, but, really, you know, if you wanted to invest in Nevada Whorehouses, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian minister to endorse that... gratefully: I mean, let's nod to logical consistency here...
1. the right of the individual which is the prime justification
2. that all benefit from trade.
I add this comment- as point 2 (trade) gives a higher economic outcome, survival is ensured as alternative systems are out-performed. If this were not the case the prime objective is noble but worthless.
I may stand corrected but I observe that more socialism may give economic growth for a few years but there is inevitable decline. (You have to quote Singapore as an exception but that is a strange socialism with very low taxes, high business freedom etc.). So, even if socialism has merits, the system is not stable but must decline.
It is true that the more we have to offer others, the more we prosper. That is a SECONDARY CONSEQUENCE, not a motivational cause.
Furthermore, Shapiro attempts a mystical, traditionalist justification. Again, the essential, axiomatic foundations of capitalism are in reason and reality, and in the discovery and creation of the New, of innovation and invention.
Socialism is not at all "on the rise." It is on its way out; and has been since 1957. Objectivists have been making the real case for capitalism for half a century and have been taking the steps leading to the demise of socialism.
A handful of desperate politicians in Seattle and New York do not make a movement. The time has come to declare victory. We are right now like the Allies after Normandy or the Union after Gettysburg. All that is left is the mopping up.
Go look at their membership.
Yes, it is growing and pretending otherwise is not going to stem it.
So how to stop it? more ammo? Or learn from the enemy?
hey, where were you camped in the picture you sent of the rig. looks like home to me
Canada's got us by 4 places in that list.