Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Urban areas are in shambles because they have no opportunity because under socialism there’s no way to work your way up you have to be giving it by a bureaucracy which never comes

Lousy management? We can use new cities in more optimal locations.

No one wants to move to Kansas

The Chinese communists can do it; why can't capitalism?

 

[Trickster]

Right wingers don't complain nine hundred times more about welfare for the Rich, they only complain about welfare for the Poor.

Yes and this exactly is my point; There is no fundamental difference between The Right and The Left. Both share the same attitudes and have the exact same worldview. Both think that groups are the primary unit of existence and both are Statists.

I already provided rebuttals in my arguments with the Austrian Economics guys. They had no better arguments.

A filthy forum pleb who supports Socialism rebutted Austrian Economics? Sure.

Now, go ahead an react to this post with the laughing-emoji since that seems to be the only response you have. At least it is more productive than when you actually care to write something. Not being offensice. Just being honest.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Urban areas are in shambles because they have no opportunity because under socialism there’s no way to work your way up you have to be giving it by a bureaucracy which never comes

Lousy management? We can use new cities in more optimal locations.

By force?

Right wing modus operandi?

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers don't complain nine hundred times more about welfare for the Rich, they only complain about welfare for the Poor.

Yes and this exactly is my point; There is no fundamental difference between The Right and The Left. Both share the same attitudes and have the exact same worldview. Both think that groups are the primary unit of existence and both are Statists.

I already provided rebuttals in my arguments with the Austrian Economics guys. They had no better arguments.

A filthy forum pleb who supports Socialism rebutted Austrian Economics? Sure.

Now, go ahead an react to this post with the laughing-emoji since that seems to be the only response you have. At least it is more productive than when you actually care to write something. Not being offensice. Just being honest.

The point is we have a general welfare clause not any form of general warfare clause that helps the richest on a for-profit basis.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice of life and property that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. Therefore, we demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

Are we in real times of War or just right wing, fake news times of expensive public policies that benefit the Richest the Mostest.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Bullshit for the millionth time it was WWII that created the middle class

I was born in the 1930's and saw the difficulties in a poor America. Both my mom and dad worked hard to raise us and make sure we went to school. My dad left school in the sixth grade while mom made it to the 7th grade. It didn't stop them. Even during the war my dad's salary was frozen at pre-war wages.
I can remember starting work at 0.75 cents an hour...
The middle class was created in the late 40's and early 50's....

The middle class was created thanks to FDR raising the tax rates for the top earners. Reagan changed all that, followed by bush jr. and trump which is why we don't have a middle class anymore. But we do have lots of billionaires which was not common in pre reagan times.

Ah, "Billionaires". The shared boogeyman of the Dems and Reps. Geez.Billionaires are billionaires because they have created trillions of worth in wealth; IF it is true that there are more billionaires today, that is great.

Of course, if the dollar wasn't so inflated, there would be no billionaires.

This whole view of economics as a zero-sum-game where one indiviual's gain is the other's loss is the greatest form of illiteracy our society faces.

Finally, talking about classes is just cringe. As if these groups are monolithic and homogenous blobs who just float around in society and act on instinct.

Collectivism is stupid.

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978: Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

The latest report in EPI’s annual series analyzing current and long-term trends in CEO compensation.

www.epi.org

Just sharing an article is not really an argument. I am not going to read that because I am not interested in that kind of stupidity. See, I could just sit here an share links to books by Mises and Hazlitt, but I actually know how to make my case and there refrain from it. I also know that you would never - and have never - read any of it anyways.

Your hate for CEO:s is unhealthy. You should introspect and find out where these emotions come from. Oooor, maybe... Just maybe, you should try and start your own company.

Right wingers don't complain nine hundred times more about welfare for the Rich, they only complain about welfare for the Poor.

I already provided rebuttals in my arguments with the Austrian Economics guys. They had no better arguments.

All welfare is created by democrat socialism

lol.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

 

[Jitss617]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Bullshit for the millionth time it was WWII that created the middle class

I was born in the 1930's and saw the difficulties in a poor America. Both my mom and dad worked hard to raise us and make sure we went to school. My dad left school in the sixth grade while mom made it to the 7th grade. It didn't stop them. Even during the war my dad's salary was frozen at pre-war wages.
I can remember starting work at 0.75 cents an hour...
The middle class was created in the late 40's and early 50's....

The middle class was created thanks to FDR raising the tax rates for the top earners. Reagan changed all that, followed by bush jr. and trump which is why we don't have a middle class anymore. But we do have lots of billionaires which was not common in pre reagan times. Now working stiffs sometimes pay higher tax rates than billionaires since the billionaires can legally buy politicians which never would have been allowed by a socialist like FDR.

LMFAO, nope it was world war II, no one paid those high taxes

A true command economy not capitalism. Nobody trusts capitalism, when it really really matters.

In a civilized country that focuses on family and morals capitalism can be very prosperous

 

[Trickster]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

James Madison also outlines his argument further in Federalist 45. I am not too familiar with all of these papers and the full history since I am not an American. However, I have a good, generals sense of history and a great understanding of philosophy and know that Democratic Socialists in America often cherry-pick this quote and twist it in favour of their own agenda which is just as ahistoric as it can get.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Bullshit for the millionth time it was WWII that created the middle class

I was born in the 1930's and saw the difficulties in a poor America. Both my mom and dad worked hard to raise us and make sure we went to school. My dad left school in the sixth grade while mom made it to the 7th grade. It didn't stop them. Even during the war my dad's salary was frozen at pre-war wages.
I can remember starting work at 0.75 cents an hour...
The middle class was created in the late 40's and early 50's....

The middle class was created thanks to FDR raising the tax rates for the top earners. Reagan changed all that, followed by bush jr. and trump which is why we don't have a middle class anymore. But we do have lots of billionaires which was not common in pre reagan times. Now working stiffs sometimes pay higher tax rates than billionaires since the billionaires can legally buy politicians which never would have been allowed by a socialist like FDR.

LMFAO, nope it was world war II, no one paid those high taxes

A true command economy not capitalism. Nobody trusts capitalism, when it really really matters.

In a civilized country that focuses on family and morals capitalism can be very prosperous

Yet, we have a right wing warfare-State not a left wing welfare-State. Why is that, right winger?

 

[danielpalos]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

James Madison also outlines his argument further in Federalist 45. I am not too familiar with all of these papers and the full history since I am not an American. However, I have a good, generals sense of history and a great understanding of philosophy and know that Democratic Socialists in America often cherry-pick this quote and twist it in favour of their own agenda which is just as ahistoric as it can get.

What I quoted is in the preamble to our supreme law of the land. It our "mission statement" for our form of Government.

 

[Jitss617]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Bullshit for the millionth time it was WWII that created the middle class

I was born in the 1930's and saw the difficulties in a poor America. Both my mom and dad worked hard to raise us and make sure we went to school. My dad left school in the sixth grade while mom made it to the 7th grade. It didn't stop them. Even during the war my dad's salary was frozen at pre-war wages.
I can remember starting work at 0.75 cents an hour...
The middle class was created in the late 40's and early 50's....

The middle class was created thanks to FDR raising the tax rates for the top earners. Reagan changed all that, followed by bush jr. and trump which is why we don't have a middle class anymore. But we do have lots of billionaires which was not common in pre reagan times. Now working stiffs sometimes pay higher tax rates than billionaires since the billionaires can legally buy politicians which never would have been allowed by a socialist like FDR.

LMFAO, nope it was world war II, no one paid those high taxes

A true command economy not capitalism. Nobody trusts capitalism, when it really really matters.

In a civilized country that focuses on family and morals capitalism can be very prosperous

Yet, we have a right wing warfare-State not a left wing welfare-State. Why is that, right winger?

Ask the democrat run epa, osha, local education why they are attacking Americans

 

[Trickster]

Yet, we have a right wing warfare-State not a left wing welfare-State. Why is that, right winger?

Define "right-winger" and explain why you map me as such.

If you have a cup of coffee, calm down and go back a few pages to read my posts, you will see that my case is that "right" and "left" are not in actual disagreement over any issue - They are basically like two talking mirrors faced towards each other.

Furthermore, it is not true that America does not have a welfare-state; government expenditures are higher than ever before and just very recently the "anti-welfare right" (lmao) introduced their "COVID-handouts" and more of that nonsense is to come.

Additionally, the difference between "right" and "left" if not one of "warfare vs welfare", that is just an interpretation only a pathetic fanboy could make. Both Reps and Dems are equally in favour of both war and welfare (unless they are Ron Paul, but he was always too good for the GOP and America as a whole or if they are Tulsi who was too anti-war for the Dem's liking).

I do not take sides in party politics - I regard both sides as equally garbage. ´

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Bullshit for the millionth time it was WWII that created the middle class

I was born in the 1930's and saw the difficulties in a poor America. Both my mom and dad worked hard to raise us and make sure we went to school. My dad left school in the sixth grade while mom made it to the 7th grade. It didn't stop them. Even during the war my dad's salary was frozen at pre-war wages.
I can remember starting work at 0.75 cents an hour...
The middle class was created in the late 40's and early 50's....

The middle class was created thanks to FDR raising the tax rates for the top earners. Reagan changed all that, followed by bush jr. and trump which is why we don't have a middle class anymore. But we do have lots of billionaires which was not common in pre reagan times. Now working stiffs sometimes pay higher tax rates than billionaires since the billionaires can legally buy politicians which never would have been allowed by a socialist like FDR.

LMFAO, nope it was world war II, no one paid those high taxes

A true command economy not capitalism. Nobody trusts capitalism, when it really really matters.

In a civilized country that focuses on family and morals capitalism can be very prosperous

Yet, we have a right wing warfare-State not a left wing welfare-State. Why is that, right winger?

Ask the democrat run epa, osha, local education why they are attacking Americans

It only seems that way to right wingers because you have no better solutions at lower cost.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet, we have a right wing warfare-State not a left wing welfare-State. Why is that, right winger?

Define "right-winger" and explain why you map me as such.

If you have a cup of coffee, calm down and go back a few pages to read my posts, you will see that my case is that "right" and "left" are not in actual disagreement over any issue - They are basically like two talking mirrors faced towards each other.

Furthermore, it is not true that America does not have a welfare-state; government expenditures are higher than ever before and just very recently the "anti-welfare right" (lmao) introduced their "COVID-handouts" and more of that nonsense is to come.

Additionally, the difference between "right" and "left" if not one of "warfare vs welfare", that is just an interpretation only a pathetic fanboy could make. Both Reps and Dems are equally in favour of both war and welfare (unless they are Ron Paul, but he was always too good for the GOP and America as a whole or if they are Tulsi who was too anti-war for the Dem's liking).

I do not take sides in party politics - I regard both sides as equally garbage. ´

The Austrian School of Economics is more of a right wing philosophy than a left wing philosophy. And, you seem to understand right wing propaganda better than left wing propaganda. Right wingers have to keep it simple or they won't understand it. I only noticed some slight effort on your part to be neutral. That doesn't work with the right wing.

Yet, the right wing prefers to "hate on the Poor" to abolishing their extra-Constitutional and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which, they also don't want to pay for with real times of War tax rates. Cognitive dissonance much?

 

[Jitss617]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Bullshit for the millionth time it was WWII that created the middle class

I was born in the 1930's and saw the difficulties in a poor America. Both my mom and dad worked hard to raise us and make sure we went to school. My dad left school in the sixth grade while mom made it to the 7th grade. It didn't stop them. Even during the war my dad's salary was frozen at pre-war wages.
I can remember starting work at 0.75 cents an hour...
The middle class was created in the late 40's and early 50's....

The middle class was created thanks to FDR raising the tax rates for the top earners. Reagan changed all that, followed by bush jr. and trump which is why we don't have a middle class anymore. But we do have lots of billionaires which was not common in pre reagan times. Now working stiffs sometimes pay higher tax rates than billionaires since the billionaires can legally buy politicians which never would have been allowed by a socialist like FDR.

LMFAO, nope it was world war II, no one paid those high taxes

A true command economy not capitalism. Nobody trusts capitalism, when it really really matters.

In a civilized country that focuses on family and morals capitalism can be very prosperous

Yet, we have a right wing warfare-State not a left wing welfare-State. Why is that, right winger?

Ask the democrat run epa, osha, local education why they are attacking Americans

It only seems that way to right wingers because you have no better solutions at lower cost.

No idea what you’re talking about

 

[Doc7505]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Bullshit for the millionth time it was WWII that created the middle class

I was born in the 1930's and saw the difficulties in a poor America. Both my mom and dad worked hard to raise us and make sure we went to school. My dad left school in the sixth grade while mom made it to the 7th grade. It didn't stop them. Even during the war my dad's salary was frozen at pre-war wages.
I can remember starting work at 0.75 cents an hour...
The middle class was created in the late 40's and early 50's....

The middle class was created thanks to FDR raising the tax rates for the top earners. Reagan changed all that, followed by bush jr. and trump which is why we don't have a middle class anymore. But we do have lots of billionaires which was not common in pre reagan times. Now working stiffs sometimes pay higher tax rates than billionaires since the billionaires can legally buy politicians which never would have been allowed by a socialist like FDR.

The destruction of the middleclass was accomplished by transference of manufacturing out of the U.S. to NAFTA 3rd world countries and China.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

Bullshit for the millionth time it was WWII that created the middle class

I was born in the 1930's and saw the difficulties in a poor America. Both my mom and dad worked hard to raise us and make sure we went to school. My dad left school in the sixth grade while mom made it to the 7th grade. It didn't stop them. Even during the war my dad's salary was frozen at pre-war wages.
I can remember starting work at 0.75 cents an hour...
The middle class was created in the late 40's and early 50's....

The middle class was created thanks to FDR raising the tax rates for the top earners. Reagan changed all that, followed by bush jr. and trump which is why we don't have a middle class anymore. But we do have lots of billionaires which was not common in pre reagan times. Now working stiffs sometimes pay higher tax rates than billionaires since the billionaires can legally buy politicians which never would have been allowed by a socialist like FDR.

The destruction of the middleclass was accomplished by transference of manufacturing out of the U.S. to NAFTA 3rd world countries and China.

All for the bottom line of the Richest. Only the right wing believes in a "race to the bottom" for wages for Labor in our first world economy. They could have simply automated over here and provided those jobs for Labor. Better solutions at potentially lower cost!

 

[Trickster]

The Austrian School of Economics is more of a right wing philosophy than a left wing philosophy.

Name one "right wing politican" who is in favour of- or advocatess Austrian Economics. All Republicans, just like all Democrats, are Keynesians who advocate for a mixed economy.

And, you seem to understand right wing propaganda better than left wing propaganda. Right wingers have to keep it simple or they won't understand it. I only noticed some slight effort on your part to be neutral. That doesn't work with the right wing.

Right-Wingers and Left-Wingers are the exact same breed, equally detached from reality and equality anti-reason.

Yet, the right wing prefers to "hate on the Poor" to abolishing their extra-Constitutional and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which, they also don't want to pay for with real times of War tax rates. Cognitive dissonance much?

They are Statists, so what did you expect?

 

[Theowl32]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

You sure it wasn't the free market, you ignorant fuck, that bailed our country out in the 30s?

Want to know how many start up companies began in the 30s?

No?

Thought not.

Category:Products introduced in the 1930s - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You lose again

 

[danielpalos]

The Austrian School of Economics is more of a right wing philosophy than a left wing philosophy.

Name one "right wing politican" who is in favour of- or advocatess Austrian Economics. All Republicans, just like all Democrats, are Keynesians who advocate for a mixed economy.

And, you seem to understand right wing propaganda better than left wing propaganda. Right wingers have to keep it simple or they won't understand it. I only noticed some slight effort on your part to be neutral. That doesn't work with the right wing.

Right-Wingers and Left-Wingers are the exact same breed, equally detached from reality and equality anti-reason.

Yet, the right wing prefers to "hate on the Poor" to abolishing their extra-Constitutional and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which, they also don't want to pay for with real times of War tax rates. Cognitive dissonance much?

They are Statists, so what did you expect?

Ron and Rand Paul use to be for it.

I agree to disagree. The right wing only has a problem with a welfare-State not a warfare-State.

Statist can believe in a welfare-State.

 

[danielpalos]

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Why Socialism Is the Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialism has been tried again and again, with varying degrees of failure every time Nobody ever seems to learn

www.intellectualtakeout.org

3 Sep 2020 ~~ By Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

What would you say to an amateur chef who baked a cake following a certain recipe only for everyone who ate a slice to fall ill quickly afterward? Being such an enthusiastic baker, they bake the same cake a second time just a few weeks later, again following the same recipe, but this time with one or two slight adjustments. Unfortunately, the result is the same – everyone who eats the cake soon ends up feeling sick.
The cake baker repeats this more than two dozen times, always modifying the recipe a little, but the basic ingredients remain more or less the same despite the fact that their guests throw up every time. Of course, there’s no way such a thing would happen. The cake baker would soon realize that there is a major problem with the recipe and throw it away.
More Than Two Dozen Failed Experiments
Yet this is exactly what socialists have done:

Over the past hundred years, there have been more than two dozen attempts to build a socialist society. It has been tried in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, China, East Germany, Cuba, Tanzania, Benin, Laos, Algeria, South Yemen, Somalia, the Congo, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua and Venezuela, among others. All of these attempts have ended in varying degrees of failure. How can an idea, which has failed so many times, in so many different variants and so many radically different settings, still be so popular? (p. 21)​

This is the central question asked by this extremely important book from economist Kristian Niemietz, who works at the London Institute for Economic Affairs. He manages to provide the answer to his question in one sentence:

It is because socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from those examples. (p. 55)​

As soon as you confront socialists with examples of failed experiments, they always offer the following response: “These examples don’t prove anything at all! In fact, none of these are true socialist models.” During the “heyday” of most of these socialist experiments, however, intellectuals held quite a different view, as Niemietz illustrates with many examples.
[Snip]
When the Experiment Fails: “That Was Never True Socialism”
In his thorough historical analysis, Niemietz shows every socialist experiment to date has gone through three phases.

During the first phase, the honeymoon period (p. 56), intellectuals around the world are enthusiastic about the system and praise it to the heavens. This enthusiasm is always followed by a second phase, disillusionment, or as Niemietz calls it, “the excuses-and-whataboutery period.” (p. 57) During this phase, intellectuals still defend the system and its “achievements” but withdraw their uncritical support and begin to admit deficiencies, although these are often presented as the result of capitalist saboteurs, foreign forces, or boycotts by US imperialists.
Finally, the third phase sees intellectuals deny that it was ever truly a form of socialism, the not-real-socialism stage. (p. 57) This is the stage at which intellectuals line up to state that the country in question – for example, the Soviet Union, China, or Venezuela – was never really a socialist country. According to Niemietz, however, this line of argumentation is rarely presented during the first phase of a new socialist experiment and becomes the dominant view only after the socialist experiment has failed.
Nowadays, Western socialists do not even attempt to oppose real-world capitalism with historical examples of socialism. Instead, they put forward arguments based on the vague utopia of a “just” society. Sometimes, they cite “Nordic socialism” – i.e. the variant of socialism that emerged in countries like Sweden – as an example, although they completely forget that the Nordic countries, having learned from their failed socialist experiments of the 1970s, have long since abandoned the socialist path. Today – despite having higher taxes – they are no less capitalist than, for example, the United States.
Socialists who criticize Stalinism and other forms of real-world, historical socialism always fail to analyze the economic reasons for the failures of these systems. (p. 28) Their analyses attack the paucity of democratic rights and freedoms in these systems, but the alternatives they formulate are based on a vague vision of all-encompassing “democratization of the economy” or “worker control.” Niemietz shows that these are the exact same principles that initially underpinned the failed socialist systems in the Soviet Union and other countries.

When contemporary socialists talk about a non-autocratic, non-authoritarian, participatory and humanitarian version of socialism, they are not as original as they think they are. That was always the idea. This is what socialists have always said. It is not for a lack of trying that it has never turned out that way. (p. 42)​

[Snip]
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, the German philosopher Hegel observed,

But what experience and history teach is this, – that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.​

It could well be that Hegel’s verdict is too harsh. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people are unable to abstract and draw general conclusions from historical experience. Despite the numerous examples of capitalist economic policies leading to greater prosperity – and the failure of every single variant of socialism that has ever been tested under real-world conditions – many people still seem incapable of learning the most obvious lessons.


Comment:
The Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses but the truth is that socialism, in all its forms, is a far superior opiate for the masses and elites alike.
It gives salvationist zeal and self righteousness with none of that messy repentance guff that so turns off the world.
Marxist Socialism dictates that the people deserve what they didn’t earn and they are due it from the State.
Marxist Socialism tells the elites that they can do as they please as the great and the good, have limitless power to indulge their pride and ego.
It's the modern version of bread and circuses of the Roman era.
Marxist Socialist Communism is a combination of naivete on the part of the followers and something in human nature that makes people long for Utopia here on Earth. Falsely inculcated by unscrupulous people who take advantage of these longings and desires. Finally, It's a lack of education or indoctrination of the young by those who should know better on the evils and shortcomings of Marxist Socialism.

What is the alternative? Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. Government is socialism and FDR's brand of socialism is what commanded our economy upgrade from the third world via second world command economics into the first world we have now. Free market capitalism exists nowhere on Earth since the fall of Mogadishu, last millenium.

You sure it wasn't the free market, you ignorant fuck, that bailed our country out in the 30s?

Want to know how many start up companies began in the 30s?

No?

Thought not.

Category:Products introduced in the 1930s - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You lose again

Even with all of FDR's command economics?