Jump to content

Socialism - does the modern definition fit the old?


Oleg Bach

Recommended Posts

In the last 75 years socialism has had many variations - is it time to firmly define what real and good socialism might be? Could it be time to blend this ideal with what we call capitalism and create a new hybred that might be helpful in this changing world? I leave it to my learned friends to give good reason why or why not this ideololgy should or should not exist...in the meantime - I stick to my belief that the great statesman - Wiston Churchill had it right - that it is an un-natural and troublesome doctrine.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of ENVY...It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"

It is apparent to me that the word envy is paramount in this statement...secondly- the idea of MISERY - the slow conditioning of the people into a miserable state - a state that is not clearly percieved by the suffering mass....who share a pain that is absolutely un-ecceptable, but some how taken as normal...it is the debasement of society...and a battle of common utility against the progress of beauty - a movement fueled by envy - or insanity - No matter how torrid you envy you will never become what you covet...so it is a futile polical mission to say the least -----------------FREEDOM _ TO BE WHO YOU WERE BORN...FREEDOM TO BE WHAT YOU WORK TO BECOME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a welfare worker refered to me as an elitist...a person with no money - no social status...it made me think...That this woman who declared herself a socialist and herself is sucking from the public tit...saw one thing in me that brought about envy and loathing - That I was un-controlable (non-compliant)...How could this man have gone through 40 years of life doing exactly what he wanted - How dare he earn a living doing something that he enjoyed..and how dare he not hand over half of his earnings to the state - that would be money to support the likes of me (the socialist wefare lady) - who also had a job as a prison guard....How dare a person such as myself actually be FREE when she did not have the courage to fight for her own freedom and rolled over in worm like compliance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism is what it is. The progressive growth of socio/economic engineering of society from a central authority. Those who manage the socio/economic engineering slowly remove the restraints on their authority until they become oppressive on the economy and selectivly biased in their preferences in the behavior of their citizens and tend to make criminals of most of them resulting in a state of fear that becomes increasingly intolerable.

The definitions of Liberal and conservative are what have changed over time. Liberalism today promotes the progressive growth of government and is essentially socialist, as it is not about it's classical roots of freedom and liberty of society to resolve the social problems that it's evolution and growth present but an increased level of government intervention in the process. The central authority, of course does not balk at it's increased responsibilities but welcomes this further centralization of authority. The balance of reason and force expected of government once it reaches a certain level becomes more a struggle of power where reason more often takes a back seat to force. Only in an unjust society is force more prevalent than reason. And this latest call of "the rich need to pay their fair share" and the occupation of Wall Street is not about reason and more about force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All socialist are poor and need to finance their "movement" - so where do they get the money? From opportunist capitialist - who love the enslavement that socialism causes. The poor need to be protected - as do the poor rich - who might have more material - but as just as dumb as those they think are inferiour....People do not understand that material wealth is not wealth - Health is wealth - BUT when a poor mans life is shortened through poverty - then the dumb rich should ensure their own survival by granting kindness to the poor - because without the poor - there is no rich!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...