The Nation’s Ronald Aronson thinks the left needs more of it:
It’s time to break a taboo and place the word “socialism” across the top of the page in a major American progressive magazine. Time for the left to stop repressing the side of ourselves that the right finds most objectionable. Until we thumb our noses at the Democratic pols who have been calling the shots and reassert the very ideas they say are unthinkable, we will keep stumbling around in the dark corners of American politics, wondering how we lost our souls–and how to find them again.
Actually, “progressive” is just another PC term for “socialist”. At least I’m willing to give Aronson credit for not mincing words about the true intentions of his ilk.
James Hudnall exposes the weak legs in Aronson’s argument:
There are two reasons Socialism fails.
One: It depends on bureaucracies to function. Bureaucracies are by nature self perpetuating forces which become effective in inverse proportion to their size. The larger they grow, the more money they require, which eventually becomes a drain on the very system they are chartered to serve.
Two: It’s against human nature. All life on this planet is driven by a need to seek advantages in their environment. If you introduce a creature into a place without predators, it overpopulates until they begin to starve to death because they use up the resources. In socialism, by guaranteeing certain things for people, they have less incentive to be motivated. This creates an unproductive class which demands more and more services. Others, outside the system, attempt to come in to sponge off it. But every system needs fuel and in economies it’s capital. If less people are producing and more are demanding, the system runs out of the means of keeping operating. And an ever growing bureaucracy requires more and more resources to function. As a result the system eventually starts to fail and shut down.
All of the worst societies, the most repressive and brutal, have been socialist states. That includes Nazi Germany.
When something has been proven, time and time again to be a failure. And not just a failure, a horror story, why would anyone want to try it again?
Not all of us want to be bitter and miserable just like those who lust after socialism.
Technorati Tags : socialism, progressive
Well at least some of them are owning up to what they really are, Socialist.
I think the author who subscribes to more socialism has been smoking something — and I don’t think it is tobacco!
Maybe he should read Ayn Rand’s famous book “Atlas Shrugged”. It points out with great clarity what happens to societies that steal from one person and give to another under the guise of “equality”. An unlike the book which is fiction, real world history has demonstrated time and time again that social utopian schemes are doomed to failure.
Every human has the birthright of freedom. The freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness isn’t a gift bestowed by control freaks who can’t run their own lives much less the lives of others. As a free person living in a fantastic country of opportunity and hope (the big and beautiful America), I realize and accept that I can succeed or fail. I also realize this means that I take responsibility for my actions and can’t blame others for my misfortune.
When I read drivel like this, my heart sinks. The Republicans need some real competition at the moment. If the Democrats follow his lead, that will just insure that the Republicans will wield control forever, because the vast majority of Americans — whether they be Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or Libertarians see this for what it is — a future that portends of disaster.
Yes, more Socialism because it appears to provide longer term employment (4 or more years). Start-up examples: the US Military and Wal-Mart.
Why would anyone want more bureaucracy? Well, speaking as a small cog in the civi service machine, I can say, and without too much fear of contradiction, I think, that almost all bureaucrats believe that all the problems of bureaucracy can be solved by more bureaucracy. Have a problem in the intelligence bureaucracy? Dont reform the old system; just add another layer to it. Does this make the intelligence bureaucracy more effective? No, but it gives more bureaucrats more jobs and job titles and budgets to play with, and isnt that really the whole point?