Does Socialism lead us to tyranny, communism, or dictatorshi

Post Reply New Topic

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Sand, what type of conservatives are you referring to? Paleoconservatism advocates anti-consumerism as well as being non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. Sounds like you're talking about neocons who are interventionist and are more liberal about being a welfare state, which has the potential to lead to crony capitalism.

@ Inuyasha: Depends what type of conservatives you're talking about and whether you're dealing with the social or fiscal side of things. I find that social conservatives want small government when it comes to the fiscal side of things, yet want to impose family values as well as Christian values on everyone else and are usually for censorship of things they find distasteful (devil worship rock, violent video games, porn, etc.).

Then you have neocons who are more liberal about the size of government and are bigger spenders. The only thing I can come up with that is small government on both side of things is libertarian conservatism.

Socialism leads to two kinds of tyrannies.
1. The classic 20th century dictator. Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussen (Ba'ath Socialist Party) , or Hitler (National Socialist).
2. The not as threatening Dictatorship of the Mediocre. Socialist systems like western Europe and Democrat-run US cities have systems where vast numbers of mediocre bureaucrats rule over those who work in the real world. Republican and Democrat-run suburbs are becoming like the bureaucratic cities. Mediocrity s celebrated as the standard in these systems. This is less dangerous than the Stalinist model, but leads to a slow mind decay. That's why you see these types banning toy guns or lyrics by Dire Straights. It's a republic of the wishy-washy, a nation of sissies.

Now, as several have pointed out, the George W Bushian conservatives, the NeoCons, and the Religious Right are not really for small government. They support wasteful spending and intrusive government too. They promoted Consumerism, brainwashing the public to waste money and fall for the "debt is wealth" scam. They hid behind their fake Christianity and promoted worldliness and waste. So I see why many here don't like conservatives.
There are different kinds f conservatives. Not all follow the Bushian NeoCon model.

Socialism is Mediocrity.

Socialism produces the waist high culture. Survival with stagnation.

ruveyn

Every -ism is bad in practice, because any form of power attracts people who are greedy and selfish bastards, who will work only for their interest. Democracy is an illusion, there will always be a small leading elite vs the people.

Scandinavian models of social (ethical) capitalism seem to work best, but only if people's mentality is developed enough, to forget about greed and self-interest and really work for the benefit of all.

It depends on how you define socialism. To some people, "socialism" simply means using tax money for any public services, including schools, roads, and food stamps, which simply isn't true. That's a form of social democracy. Socialism is about ceasing control of the means of production from capital and placing it in the hands of labor, which using tax money for social programs simply doesn't do. Being that state and federal government only spends 1% of taxes on welfare programs, I don't think its that big of an issue in comparison to the 2/3 that's spent on the war and war industry contractors.

Besides, talk radio has people believe that socialism is any kind of taxation and spending. I've even heard bank bailouts referred to as "socialism for the rich" which is just a further bastardization of the term. Socialism can exist absent of government intervention through independent, worker cooperatives. Look at the Mondragon corporation. It employs and is run by its workers and has functioned since 1953 in the Basque region in Spain.

Actually things may start to improve as far as leadership with the Republican House of Representatives. They certainly seem to want to make good on their promise to cut the spending.

Anyways, Socialism does lead to tyranny, dictatorships, etc. It just the rate of the slide varies, it can be really quickly or slowly occurring over time. When talk show hosts point out things like Obamacare and other items being a Government Powergrab, they do have a valid point.

I actually think the new members of Congress are making a big impact already.

Socialism doesn't work. It's a failed experiment. The more we try to achieve socialism here in the U.S., the more trouble we'll be in.

When you take away too much of what people earn in taxes, you demotivate them from wanting to produce. Then there is no wealth to help provide for the needy anyway.

You want to balance necessary social services with the capacity for society to be as productive as it can.

I get enough of my paychecks taken out in taxes, mainly for socialist programs (read: "Social" Security) that I will never reap the benefits of, because they can't pay for themselves and are basically government handouts as they currently exist.

Under capitalism, a few people are happy and many are miserable, but under socialism, everyone is miserable. The former is the better choice.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!