A Few Thoughts On Socialism

[PorscheNGuns]

Much of what I know about socialism I learned from Karl Marx. Its rise is documented quite well in the Communist Manifesto. (Better to learn about socialism from a communist than a capitalist)

Basically, socialism became widespread throughout Europe a handful of centuries ago, as the elite recognized their aristocratic powers and luxuries fading along with the fuedal system that once granted them this comfort, and furthermore the organization and rise of the new industrial working class posed a significant threat. No problem, of course - those in power simply replaced the existing system with "Socialism" in various forms, ensuring their seat at the table, while quelling any rebellious working class peasants by keeping them happy, making them feel like
the government is on their side.

This is essentially what the Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry's of the USA want. While they play polo in Nantucket and enjoy their yachts and sails out of their Rhode Island summer mansions by the sea, we get "free health care" and "free education" and piles of empty promises. Oh boy! Thier constituencies, naturally, are the lazy schmucks who have an inherent tendency to blame their(poor/jobless/homeless) situation on everyone else, and/or those who simply can't handle the idea of responsibility. (Throw in the drug-addicts, faggots, atheists, and various organizations such as the ACLU and NAMBLA and you've got yourself 57 million votes)

As a God-fearing hard working conservative, I am thankful that there are still rich, powerful families like the Bush's that stand up for the working class schmoes like me, and give me all the economic opportunity I could ever ask for.

Some paragraphs from Comm. Manifesto that stuck out:

"The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating
elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightaway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires
in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie."

"To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction -- on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic. "

in even more layman's terms - the goal of Socialism is for the elite to stay elite forever, and ensure that no one else can ever become elite

Example: Elite Bob has 20 million bucks. Iron worker Joe has 20 thousand bucks.

Let's say the socialist income tax rate is 80%. Elite Bob, while lecturing a graduating class on why they should be happy to get "free" entitlements from the government and have 20 hour work weeks, happily pays 80% of the 2 million dollar interest income he makes for sipping scotch all day and polishing his fencing awards (400K left over, enough for that new ferrari and a few vacations).

Meanwhile, Iron Worker Joe has an idea for a new component to use in the factory to make iron smelting 6 times more efficient. Joe shelves the idea because "what the [censored]", it would just be more work for nothing. (actually, in reality, Joe moves to America, patents the idea, and becomes filthy rich and enters the elite class).

-Matt

[kurto]

I thought this was a goofy post. I was happy when I hit this part; "(Throw in the drug-addicts, faggots, atheists, and various organizations...)" since I knew this was just the ramblings of a waste of flesh.

[PorscheNGuns]

After a brief examination of this troll's post history (90%+ of which are one liner responses to political threads), I realize I shouldnt have expected much more of a response from her

-Matt

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
(90%+ of which are one liner responses to political threads),

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you didn't read most of my posts. I tend to ramble on with long winded posts. No one's accused me of being too brief.

You're actually one of the few people to whom I've been brief. Responding in an articulate matter to a blathering bigot just isn't that interesting.

[PorscheNGuns]

Readers should note the common socialist debating tactic of calling someone a bigot when he slams their entire way of thought. (Notice I didnt denigrate any ethnicities/races, let alone mention them, in my post, yet I'm still labeled a bigot)

-Matt

[kurto]

Last post to the moron. Let's just see how many fallacies and ignorant things this troll can make in one short post-
[ QUOTE ]
Readers should note the common socialist debating tactic

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) nothing I have said has ever indicated that I am a socialist. Of course, typical troll to just arbitrarily call someone a socialist.
(2) the political philosophies of an individual has no bearing on their tendency to call one a 'bigot.' There is nothing about socialism that would lead to one calling you a bigot. Logical fallacy by the moron.

[ QUOTE ]
when he slams their entire way of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you didn't slam my (nor I suspect any socialist's) way of thought, everything that follows is based on a false premise. Another logical fallacy by the trolling moron.

[ QUOTE ]
(Notice I didnt denigrate any ethnicities/races, let alone mention them, in my post, yet I'm still labeled a bigot)



[/ QUOTE ]

The moron doesn't know what it means to be a bigot. Here's a clue, moron, bigotry isn't limited to race/enthnicities. Apparently, you're too stupid to understand the difference between a 'racist' and a 'bigot.'

I called you a bigot because of your false and slanderous accusations against 57 million people. Here's the part where I suspect most people just stopped reading since they realized you're just a bigotted partisan idiot:

[ QUOTE ]

Thier constituencies, naturally, are the lazy schmucks who have an inherent tendency to blame their(poor/jobless/homeless) situation on everyone else, and/or those who simply can't handle the idea of responsibility. (Throw in the drug-addicts, faggots, atheists, and various organizations such as the ACLU and NAMBLA and you've got yourself 57 million votes)

[/ QUOTE ]

And for the record: Faggots is a derogatory term used by bigots. Labeling everyone who disagrees with you politically as poor, homeless, lazy, drug addicted, NAMBLA members... I can't think of a better way for you to announce to the board that you're a world class bigotted moron.

Oddly enough, I don't see any other conservatives jumping into the thread to back you up on this statement.

No need to respond to me. You're trolling's not that interesting. I've given you more attention then you deserve.

I leave you with a piece of advice: try looking up words. You won't appear so ignorant if you learn simple things like 'bigot' and 'racist' aren't necessarily synonyms.

[PorscheNGuns]

A bigotted diatribe against bigotry. Nice.

Readers should also note the inability to address any points that were made in the OP but rather, in its place the childish name calling I'm sure you've all come to expect from kurto

-Matt

[ptmusic]

This is satire, right?

Brilliant! You got this "lazy schmuck" to LOL!

-ptmusic

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
...common socialist debating tactic of calling someone a bigot ... I didnt denigrate any[one,] yet I'm still labeled a bigot)

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to break it to you but here's a small sample of your bigotry :

[ QUOTE ]
...throw in the ... drug-addicts, faggots, atheists, and various organizations such as the ACLU and NAMBLA and you've got yourself 57 million [voters for the Democratic Party]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post about socialism is worthy of examination and debate, all things considered. Not that it brings anything new to the "liberals-versus-patriots" artificial antinomy, of course.