Why is Socialism so popular all of a sudden

[williepete]

Why is a form of government that has a 100% record of failure, misery, plunder and murder popular? The answer: It's not. You have to look at the types of people who say they are socialists. There's your answer.


Why is Anyone a Socialist?

Socialism is the most discredited ideology in the history of political thought. That’s assuming you don’t count cannibalism as an ideology.

During the last century, socialist ideologues killed, tortured and starved innocent people on a heretofore unimaginable scale.

R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These were not deaths in war. They were the victims of genocide. The vast majority were killed by socialist governments, including the national socialists (Nazis) in Germany.

If socialism means anything it means a rejection of the Jeffersonian idea that you have a right to pursue your own happiness. Socialists believe you have no such right. Instead, you have an obligation to live for others. As a practical matter, that means you have an obligation to live for the state.

Why would anyone believe that? And why are so many Democrats now donning the “socialist” label. In a recent poll more Democrats were positive about socialism (57 percent) than about capitalism (47 percent).

Let’s try out three possibilities.

Why is Anyone a Socialist?

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the General Welfare is simply that; it is not, major, specific, or common. Comprehensive is what general is for.

The term remains subjective, and it would be better for all if the two wings would grow up and find a point of equilibrium with which they could survive.
.

i agree to disagree. Congress has the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic. We really just need to ask the Right Wing, any more problems?

Do you feel it's the authority of Congress to tax to ANY degree and solve EVERY problem?

If not, then the task is finding a point of equilibrium for both.
.

Promoting and providing for the general welfare are in our Constitution.

Only the power to provide, not promote can be found regarding the common defense.

Yet, the right wing Only complains about spending on the Poor.

There is no authority to promote the common offense or the general warfare, to solve any of our problems.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is a form of government that has a 100% record of failure, misery, plunder and murder popular? The answer: It's not. You have to look at the types of people who say they are socialists. There's your answer.


Why is Anyone a Socialist?

Socialism is the most discredited ideology in the history of political thought. That’s assuming you don’t count cannibalism as an ideology.

During the last century, socialist ideologues killed, tortured and starved innocent people on a heretofore unimaginable scale.

R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These were not deaths in war. They were the victims of genocide. The vast majority were killed by socialist governments, including the national socialists (Nazis) in Germany.

If socialism means anything it means a rejection of the Jeffersonian idea that you have a right to pursue your own happiness. Socialists believe you have no such right. Instead, you have an obligation to live for others. As a practical matter, that means you have an obligation to live for the state.

Why would anyone believe that? And why are so many Democrats now donning the “socialist” label. In a recent poll more Democrats were positive about socialism (57 percent) than about capitalism (47 percent).

Let’s try out three possibilities.

Why is Anyone a Socialist?

just right wing propaganda;

we have our social "marching orders":

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[williepete]

we have our social "marching orders":

Communist propaganda. Socialism is plunder and murder. Riches and power for a few elite and misery for the rest. 100% of the time.

The fact that the framers followed up the general welfare clause in Article I Sec. 8 with specific enumerated powers indicates the latter – a qualification on federal authority. If they had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific powers.

James Madison made this very point in a letter to James Robertson dated April, 20, 1831.

"With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Madison further illuminated the intended meaning of the general welfare clause in a letter to Edmund Pendleton dated 1793, pointing out that the phrase was lifted from the Articles of Confederation and was intended to retain its meaning in the new Constitution.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction."

The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks | | Tenth Amendment Center

 

[danielpalos]

we have our social "marching orders":

Communist propaganda. Socialism is plunder and murder. Riches and power for a few elite and misery for the rest. 100% of the time.

The fact that the framers followed up the general welfare clause in Article I Sec. 8 with specific enumerated powers indicates the latter – a qualification on federal authority. If they had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific powers.

James Madison made this very point in a letter to James Robertson dated April, 20, 1831.

"With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Madison further illuminated the intended meaning of the general welfare clause in a letter to Edmund Pendleton dated 1793, pointing out that the phrase was lifted from the Articles of Confederation and was intended to retain its meaning in the new Constitution.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction."

The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks | | Tenth Amendment Center

nothing but right wing propaganda, like usual. you all can't even stick to your own, republican doctrine.

and, the common defense is not any thing and every thing, either.

 

[williepete]

nothing but right wing propaganda, like usual. you all can't even stick to your own, republican doctrine.

Delusional as usual.

Translation: I don't know anything about U.S. history, the constitution or the founders intent. I can only parrot leftist propaganda.

And I'm not a republican.

 

[williepete]

Socialism is plunder and murder:

Are people socialists because they believe in equality of income? Socialists talk a lot about inequality under capitalism. But where does one find the most grotesque inequality? It’s under socialism.

-Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung was the greatest mass murderer in world history, causing at least 45 million people to be worked, starved or beaten to death. On his death, Mao Tse-tung was worth an estimated $1 billion.

-The world’s second greatest mass murderer, Josef Stalin, killed 20 million, many by forced starvation. Some regard him as one of the wealthiest people of all time.

-Between 1 and 3 million people starved to death under the regime of North Korea dictator Kim Jong-il. A UN report estimates that 18 million North Koreans go to bed hungry every night under the regime of his son, Kim Jong Un, including 1.3 million children under the age of five. Meanwhile, Kim managed to slip by international sanctions and import $2.09 billion in luxury goods from China between 2012 and 2014, according to The New York Times. The items included Mercedes-Benz S-Class cars and a luxury yacht worth as much as $6 million.

-Fidel Castro’s former bodyguard Juan Reinaldo Sánchez says that the communist leader “lived like a king” and “ran the country like a cross between medieval overlord and Louis XV.” While ordinary Cubans stood in breadlines, Castro had his own private yacht and his own private island. In Havana, he lived in an immense estate with a rooftop bowling alley, a basketball court and fully equipped medical center.

-During the reign of avowed Marxist Hugo Chavez, Venezuela drowned in a sea of corruption according to the Economist. Yet while ordinary people faced food shortages, skyrocketing inflation and abject poverty, Chavez’s daughter, María Gabriela Chávez, had bank accounts in the U.S. and Andorra with assets totaling nearly $4.2 billion– making her the richest person in the country.

-Following Chavez’s death, things have gotten worse. While the people in power are wearing Rolex watches, flying around on private planes and enjoying lavish parties, children are dying of malnutrition and lack of medical care and searching through trash cans trying to find food.

Why is Anyone a Socialist?

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but right wing propaganda, like usual. you all can't even stick to your own, republican doctrine.

Delusional as usual.

Translation: I don't know anything about U.S. history, the constitution or the founders intent. I can only parrot leftist propaganda.

And I'm not a republican.

the power is to provide for the general welfare, not the general badfare. hope that helps.

 

[williepete]

Socialism is plunder and murder. To anyone who advocates socialism, one should ask, "Who do you aspire to be, the plunderer or the murderer?"

Are people socialists because they think socialism works? No one can seriously believe that. At the time North Korea and South Korea were divided, the populations were genetically the same and culturally the same. Consider these differences today:


-Average income in the south is more than ten times its level in the north.

-North Koreans are 1 to 3 inches shorter – a fact that is most likely explained by food shortages in the north.

-In North Korea, just one out of every ten people has a mobile phone. In South Korea, there are more mobile phones than there are people.

-97% of the roads in North Korea are unpaved, compared to only 8% in the south.

Small wonder that people risk their lives to escape to the south. No one is risking anything to go north.

So why are so many Democrats identifying as socialists?

Why is Anyone a Socialist?

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is plunder and murder. To anyone who advocates socialism, one should ask, "Who do you aspire to be, the plunderer or the murderer?"

Are people socialists because they think socialism works? No one can seriously believe that. At the time North Korea and South Korea were divided, the populations were genetically the same and culturally the same. Consider these differences today:


-Average income in the south is more than ten times its level in the north.

-North Koreans are 1 to 3 inches shorter – a fact that is most likely explained by food shortages in the north.

-In North Korea, just one out of every ten people has a mobile phone. In South Korea, there are more mobile phones than there are people.

-97% of the roads in North Korea are unpaved, compared to only 8% in the south.

Small wonder that people risk their lives to escape to the south. No one is risking anything to go north.

So why are so many Democrats identifying as socialists?

Why is Anyone a Socialist?

Socialism requires social morals for free; like Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government. Hope that helps.

 

[Dale Smith]

Average Joes are tired of being stomped on by the American oligarchy.

The global elites WANT socialism that will lead to full blown communism with them being at the top....how can you be so stupid as to not know that?

 

[Pilot1]

The brainwashed twerps have been brainwashed, and indoctrinated in schools, and universities for decades. It is finally catching up. They believe it can actually work, and is "fair". LOL!

 

[williepete]

Socialism requires social morals for free; like Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government.

The word "socialism" and "morals" cannot in any way, shape or form coexist in a logical, truthful sentence. Whatever you're talking about isn't socialism. Socialism is plunder and murder.

 

[SmokeALib]

Because people are drugged up and brainwashed to be government-dependent from grade school on up.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism requires social morals for free; like Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government.

The word "socialism" and "morals" cannot in any way, shape or form coexist in a logical, truthful sentence. Whatever you're talking about isn't socialism. Socialism is plunder and murder.

Religion is a form of socialism. The religious, seem to be able to make communism work, to a certain extent.

A secular and temporal, Commune of Heaven on Earth, is what socialism could enable.

 

[williepete]

is what socialism could enable.

"Could" is the operative word. It has never worked and never will work due to the flawed nature of man.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Religion is a form of socialism.

I agree.


FUCK RELIGION!!!!

The religious, seem to be able to make communism work, to a certain extent.

You forget the element of religion that makes it wholly different from goose-stepping communism. Choice.

A secular and temporal, Commune of Heaven on Earth, is what socialism could enable.

Except it would be forced, not voluntary.


commie

 

[williepete]

People favor socialism until they get a job or learn what it really is.

"When you have to pay the bill that goes with your philosophy, it suddenly puts your philosophy to the test."

Ramsey nails it as always.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

People need to Stomp your Ass in the Ground…..

Politically of course, unless you push to far……………

Fascism, goes hand in hand with democratic socialism.

On the one hand you have people that want to use their democratic rights to create a more just economic system. On the other hand you have people who will tolerate only so much economic justice until they threaten violence.

Ignorance goes hand in hand with stupidity, your post is proof of that.

 

[danielpalos]

is what socialism could enable.

"Could" is the operative word. It has never worked and never will work due to the flawed nature of man.

Capitalism can never buy us, a Stairway to Heaven.