World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty

Yep.

Remember, I am an ardent capitalist and conservative who believes in literal and originalist interpretation of the constitution.

It is my opinion that individual liberty and true capitalism will be overrun by socialist autocracy, and that the people are powerless to stop it. It is inevitable.

I have come to the realization that the values of the United States have died in the cradle. Our infant idealism of the individual as sovereign and people's power to limit government died a very very long time ago.

We are no longer a collection of sovereign states, united for the common good by a federal government of limited specifically written powers. The concept of the sovereign state is no more. America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more. The power of the federal government has completely eclipsed "those powers left to the States". The "States" are nothing more than geographically determined divisions of local administration.

Individua liberty has been stolen. Economic freedom has been stolen. And we Americans are all blinded by an educational institution that indoctrinates us into the illusion that we are somehow morally superior. We are inspired by the goodness of our founding fathers and the moral duty we feel to protect those that seek self-determination. Our revolution was one of inspired rejection of elitism and autocracy. But America has become the elitist autocracy we rejected more than 200 years ago. What makes our revolution any better than that of Over Cromwell, France, Russia, Mexico, or any other? We are not unique. The idealism of our founding fathers was nothing more than a brief anomaly in the world history of autocratic socialist governance.

America is no longer the "States United". It is ONE state.

That said, I have come to the conclusion that this is inevitable across the world. There will continue to be brief moments of liberty in pockets of the world, and populist libertarians will continue to sound their cries so long as free mediums of speech are available.

Now let me explain why this is inevitable:

Freedom and capitalism lead to economic propserity. This prosperity leads to both complacency and a sense of entitlement in the masses. They become sedated and demand greater benefit for reduced effort. As this occurs in capitalism, an economic disparity occurs where the selfish ignorant complacent entitled masses begin to engage in less and less work. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the educated driven visionary entrepreneurs achieve great economic success. The safe and complacent masses at the bottom then feel jealousy and entitlement towards the earnings of the fewer successful risk-takers. They pressure legislators to give them greater and greater benefits and the entrepreneurs are left with less and less. The middle class, meanwhile, are just as complacent and don't give a damn what the hell is going on. The politicians, interested only in their personal benefit, appeal to the lowest common denomitors and steal from the wealthy to give to the self entitled masses.

Capitalism will remain in highly regulated form. Free speech will become more and more regulated and conviluteed to meet the demands of the shallow masses and political elite. Land rights are taken away. Guns are taken away. The state becomes all powerful and led by the same cycle of "democratically elected" turds from the list of nepotism-apointed options provided to us.

And any resistance will be met with manipulation, distortion, and isolation.

Violence as a control measure is a thing of the past. We will socailly evolve towards this end because natural selection has been disrupted to allow the dregs and waste of the world to overpower the survivors and liberty loving capitalists among us.

Thus, we are doomed to be ruled over by a very few elite who manipulate the masses like the dogs and scum that humanity ultimately is.

And it has already begun. The United States of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin has been destroyed. And so the transition into the New American State has already occurred before we realized it.

But is is inevitable the world over. It isn't bad, good, or indifferent. It's just the way it is. And I'm done fighting for a cause that cannot win. I will continue to serve my community. I will continue to care for my fellow man. And I will continue to believe in the ideals of individual liberty so long as I live. But humanity cannot sustain that which it is incapable of.

That's called COMMUNISM, . One of the two bases of Socialism is absolute freedom (the other being financial equality.) Saying "Socialist Autocracy" is like saying "democratic facism." It doesn't make any sense.

And it doesn't work like that- yes, we will become an autocracy, but why in the hell is the government going to steal from the rich?! They will leave them in their place, because they are being paid to do so.

Quote:

---

One of the two bases of Socialism is absolute freedom

---

Theoretically, perhaps. In practice, definately not so.

Quote:

---

And it doesn't work like that- yes, we will become an autocracy, but why in the hell is the government going to steal from the rich?! They will leave them in their place, because they are being paid to do so.

---

Rich and poor people have the same amount of votes (one), and there are many more poor than rich.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Theoretically, perhaps. In practice, definately not so.

---

Oh... never mind. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Rich and poor people have the same amount of votes (one), and there are many more poor than rich.

---

Even Stalin admitted that it doesn't matter who votes, but rather who directs the votes, and who counts them. As long as their are two parties, they will tell us who to vote for; and no matter who wins, the Rich win too.

Quote:

---

Oh... never mind.

---

Alright, how many socialist countries allow you to choose not to wear a seatbelt?

Quote:

---

As long as their are two parties, they will tell us who to vote for; and no matter who wins, the Rich win too.

---

A bit less of the class warfare, please. Certain parties base their platforms on socialism, 'redistribution of wealth', etc. Don't try telling me the rich win with the democrats in the USA.

DA, I have a bad feeling that you are right. I read once that civilizations go through stages of rise and decline. Socialism could become triumphant in this country, but I do not think it would be so in the long run, perhaps just another phase in a cycle.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Alright, how many socialist countries allow you to choose not to wear a seatbelt?

---

Whoop de damn doo. This country isn't socialist- it is far too rightwing and far too totalitarian- and we require a hell of a lot more than just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

A bit less of the class warfare, please. Certain parties base their platforms on socialism, 'redistribution of wealth', etc. Don't try telling me the rich win with the democrats in the USA.

---

YES! Yes, they frickin' do! Do you seriously believe that there are more than maybe 3 or 4 honest politicians in Washington?! It doesn't matter one bit what they say- they are all rolling in the money the rich give them, and there is no way in hell that they will do anything to harm that. If you get right down to it, the only reason they hate each other is because they have different talking points.

And it isn't class warfare any more than smashing bugs is interspecies warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

Whoop de damn doo. This country isn't socialist- it is far too rightwing and far too totalitarian- and we require a hell of a lot more than just that.

---

Your sadly mistaken - I have been to a few countries that are a lot more totalitarian then the United States could even dream about being.

Quote:

---

YES! Yes, they frickin' do! Do you seriously believe that there are more than maybe 3 or 4 honest politicians in Washington?!

---

He didn't claim any were honest now did he.

His point is that the Democratic Party panders to social entitlement programs, (and the Republican Party is not to far behind them on that pandering.)

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter one bit what they say- they are all rolling in the money the rich give them, and there is no way in hell that they will do anything to harm that.

---

Actually they are rolling in money from the Special Interest groups - many of them such as the AARP who recieve donations from the elderly who can barely afford the denotation so that the AARP can attempt to influence congress on certain bills. (Again both parties are guilty of this.)

Quote:

---

If you get right down to it, the only reason they hate each other is because they have different talking points.

---

Not at all - you might want to check into it some more.

Quote:

---

And it isn't class warfare any more than smashing bugs is interspecies warfare.

---

Now that is funny.

Really, bless your heart. Yes, socialism is evil. Yes, McCarthy was right. Yes, those damn commies. Yes, the Left is naturally totalitarian, whereas the freedom-loving righteous right is always right. Yes, fascism is just a Leftist in right-clothing. Yes, social democrats earlier last century are lies, or maybe they're just right-wing. Oh yes. WHAT ELSE IS NEW? :dizzy2:

What's with the Backroom these days? Either it's civilization, socialism, liberalism, or evolution that gets demonized. :no:

You do realise that you can have components of both socialism and capitalism to create a synthesis, a best of both worlds...

I don't think you people even read the whole post. I think you just glance over it, pick a sentence or two, and then make a comment on what you think it may be about.

I actually adress just about everything that has been mentioned here in reply.

Socialism is the modern norm. Free-wheeling capitalism and individual liberty is the anomaly.

Total communism/socialism is just as impossible as total capitalism. Heavily heavily regulated capitalism is the eventuality.

World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty? No. Because socialist nanny-states cannot succeed economically.

Investor's Business Daily Editorial

Quote:

---

You do realise that you can have components of both socialism and capitalism to create a synthesis, a best of both worlds...

---

That's compromise, and IMO compromise doesn't work in the long run.

Great article Xiahou. But it is an eventuality because the masses of ignorant self-entitled will override the entrepreneurs, climbing them like ladders in the waters of capitalism, eventually drowning both.

Just look at France, where the people scream and fight for government jobs and the youth demand no change in order to preserve an artifical social system.

A world socialist economic environment is an eventuality. Limited capitalism will be allowed for the exact reason that Zorba pointed out: someone has to pay for everyone else and there must be at least some incentive to excel. Complete and total taxation results in a lack of incentive for productivity and entrepreneurialsim.

But watch as the the size of government swells to encapsulate the whole of this planet, leaving geogrpahically designated regions to "administer" themselves while lacking actual self-determination. Heck, the interdependancy of the global economy alone is driving that force. It is only a small step forward beyond economic integration to international governance. It starts with a confederation, and intra-national enforcement , and ends with complete consolidation with far-removed "state" representatives under an unelected global autocracy.

There never was individual freedom. Your post makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zalmoxis

That's compromise, and IMO compromise doesn't work in the long run.

---

No, its like going to a food hall and picking out the best foods from the nations on selection. Sushi from the Japanese stand, Chicken nuggets smothered in a syrup of chilli and sugar from the Korean guys and a Latte from the Italian run cafe... it ain't compromise it is cherry picking.

Bah.

First of all, I have read the entire first post, thank you. It simply doesn't make sense from so many standpoints that I decided not to bother with.

But if you so insist, here are the three key points roughly gathered up:

1) You clamor for something that never exist. From your own--pardon me--biased standpoint, you present a lament towards, quote, "Capitalism...Land Rights...Guns...Free Speech," and a bunch of other stuff you can see in just about any conservative blogging site as of, I don't know, today. First: you imply that all those are perfect, that they even existed in the first place, fully functional, noble, ideal. False, that is. Whatever human civilization was, it was never this so-called ideal (and only to select individuals) that you present as the past. This alone is worth dismissing the rant for.

2) Second, you never define what kind of meaning are you using in the terms, socialism, Free Speech, Capitalism, and a whole bunch of other stuff, what definitions, what impact, what claim, what warrant, what connections, what justifications. So what choice for disagreeing (disagreeable, if you wish) readers are left to conclude? Rant. Unfounded. Using the same old standards of propaganda that is the tool of the day. The rallying cry of "Capitalism," "Free Speech," and such; not mentioning, of course, the possible, if not likely contradiction that one could create by drawing connections between these terms. What else? Socialism has been used as a synonym for totalitarianism, for globalization, and everything you and those of your viewpoint choose to hate. Of course, socialism is not the same as totalitarianism, globalization, or even communism. And I'm even generalizing here: socialism is a term far too broad, far too general, and far too dynamic for stereotyping. Alas. That makes such terms even better for aggressive rallying cry. Not many cares for "Down with Maoism"--many, including the population you mentioned as the majority, the slaves, the plebians, if you might, will follow "Down with Communism!"

3) Your prediction is a Doomsday scenario, calling for a historical inevitably (hmm...where have I heard such terms before? :no: ) of the domination of "socialism," as you called it. And your supporting reasons are unfounded; this also ties to the first point, calling for a past that never exist. When was this perfect, completely free, utterly capitalistic (are those...oxymorons?), and incredibly moral society existed? Not the Washington regime? Not Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, Lincoln, heck, Davis, the two Roosevelts, Hoover, Eicke, for God's sake, Kennedy, Reagan, God be damned, or Bush, by any chance? You are aware the Revolution was basically for tea and taxes for the common masses, the majority of Americans in 1776 who never read the oh-so-glorious minds of English utilitarians, right? And what false claims of these "survivors of liberty," against "the dregs" being hunted down like dogs or whatever you prefer! And what false claims that quantity of states make better? And what false claims that the world of humanity was ever truly free for once in its entire existence, that there never were rulers and the ruled, that the rich would always be the target, the righteous, the good, the victimized, the betters?

Better?

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

No, its like going to a food hall and picking out the best foods from the nations on selection. Sushi from the Japanese stand, Chicken nuggets smothered in a syrup of chilli and sugar from the Korean guys and a Latte from the Italian run cafe... it ain't compromise it is cherry picking.

---

It's like picking those out, having this great tasting food in your mouth one day, and having diarrhea for the next 3 days in a row.

Meh! You just go back and keep eating until you adjust.

On a semi-related note.

Where will the jobs exist when the "service sector" (counting in quite a bit here, like administration, sellers, etc, etc) ends up as effectivitized as agriculture and heavy industry?

There are just as many rich liberals with power as there are rich conservatives, and this can be construed as a class war. The liberal redistribution of wealth benefits the liberal leaders doing it, as well as the liberals recieving it, the ones who are neither get hosed, and this empowers the ruling class more. Then in steps the other side to take a go at it, things get shuffled around a bit, but in the end the same people benefit on each side. Its elected officials living out their own little role playing game, pundits turning into prophets and making a nice buck doing it, wealthy donors and interests buying their security via a defunct democratic process, and people like us paying for it with taxes and rabid consumerism. Our suffering, our needs both real and imagined, are their bread and butter and it is entirely feasible that this country could fall into a deep socialist trend, securing the elites powers even further

Sometimes I wish it were still a barter economy, the soap opera would be a lot less dramatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty? No. Because socialist nanny-states cannot succeed economically.

Investor's Business Daily Editorial

---

Just because a socialist nanny-state cant succeed doesn't mean that nations don't try it, and when they end in disaster it tends to get ugly for a lot of people, and the nations tend to lose stability and, worse even, lose land

200 years ago in the USA there was only freedom as a rich white male. Even then there is more freedom now. Try being a gay rich white male 200 years ago. Miserable time.

Everyone always dreams of a time of milk-and-honey, of plenty and freedom and justice. Be that pre-Norman England or 19th century America. But it's rubbish, it was never that good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Yep.
We are no longer a collection of sovereign states, united for the common good by a federal government of limited specifically written powers. The concept of the sovereign state is no more. America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more. The power of the federal government has completely eclipsed "those powers left to the States". The "States" are nothing more than geographically determined divisions of local administration.

America is no longer the "States United". It is ONE state.
.

---

That has been the case since the end of the civil war when politicians began to say the 'United States is' as opposed to the 'United States are'...

Time for an other civil war?... The South will rise again!! :2thumbsup:

I'm confused as to why some Americans are afraid of this big mythical "socialist takeover". Where are these socialists? Does this stem from the cold war era communist histeria, where an evil communist was to be found hiding under every bed? The US is a virtual two party system: Republicans and Democrats, neither of which have anything to do with republics or democracies let alone solialism. Basically there is no freedom, because you have two choices: Representation of the rich elites or representation of the rich elites. In simple terms the OP seems to be referring to the welfare state and the hangers on this type of system amasses. Those that don't better themselves but apparently demand the same benefits as those that do?

Socialism won't benefit these select elites, capitalism obviously does. If you're referring to the restrictive almost totalitarian approach of the modern nanny state, apparent here in the UK under Blair, then you may have a point, but this is in no shape or form "socialism".

DA, if there's one thing you can confidently predict about the future, it is that current trends will not continue in a linear fashion. They never do.

Does anybody know if there's a term for the linear-trend prediction fallacy? I.E., "If Oklahomans continue to have babies at their current rate, by 2050 all of American will be Oklahomans." Or, "If the Isle of Man's economy continues to grow at its current rate, by 2060 everyone in the world will speak Manx."

The one thing you can say with confidence about the future is that it will gob-smack you with all sorts of crazy things you never saw coming.

Right now you're despairing over the presumed triumph of nanny-state socialism over liberty and capitalism. To which I say -- pffffft. Nothing lasts forever, the only constant is change, and linear trends never play out to their theoretical maximum.

Look at the UK. We've had a Nanny State in the parst far more extensive than is present at the moment. In some areas of the UK it is in fact crumbling (privatisation of government assets, the NHS).

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

What's with the Backroom these days? Either it's civilization, socialism, liberalism, or evolution that gets demonized. :no:

---

Come now...

Religion and America are always demonized in the Backroom; it's time for something new... :laugh4:

...Trust Div to stir up the pot this well. :2thumbsup:


1st:

Euro-socialism and Yanko-socialism are fairly different breeds.

In Europe, there was a fairly rigid class structure -- bordering on a caste system -- for the better part of millenium prior to the First World War. The Rothschilds, for example, have had a good bit of chink since before Cristoforo Colomb blundered into Santo Domingo. They have also had a population density that is much higher than that of the USA for most of the last 400 years. Issues of equity, ownership of capital, and building an adequate standard of living have been intensified by this. Moreover, the USA was never the colonial power that any of the major European nations were -- and our "baggage" is therefore different -- instead we were a frontier (see below).

Here in the USA our would-be socialists are mostly trying to create equity and promote efficiency. Implicitly, leaving things in the hands of 50 legislatures makes little sense when you can have consistent, uniform, and single-source laws, regulations, etc. They also feel it is wrong on a moral level for some to enjoy plenty when others are in need -- the government being their chosen "neutral" tool to assure some redistribution.

Note, however, that the "old money" here has still bent the system to their will. We have an INCOME tax as our primary source of revenue, not a value added or point of purchase tax system. Most of the "old money" doesn't even have the money, per se, anymore -- just a tax-resistant trust that provides them what they -- the trustee -- needs. Thus the income tax serves to re-distribute wealth but also to partially insulate and protect extent wealth empires. The number of Bill Gates class success stories are few.

2nd

Div, what I believe you are actually bemoaning is the lack of a "frontier." All of the cherished values you describe are central tools for success in a frontier environment, but less valued in a developed and limited population zone, where "panem et circum" socialism becomes a primary means of defusing social tensions. In our past, we simply told the restive ones to "Go West." Sadly, I don't see a full resurgence of that attitude until some form of diaspora gives us a new frontier to explore. We will be forced to accede to some of the same governmental and social tools that Europe has adopted, because we no longer have the "frontier" that characterized so much of our history from 1607 through 1917 (and a little longer in Alaska).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Capitalism will remain in highly regulated form. Free speech will become more and more regulated and conviluteed to meet the demands of the shallow masses and political elite. Land rights are taken away. Guns are taken away. The state becomes all powerful and led by the same cycle of "democratically elected" turds from the list of nepotism-apointed options provided to us.

---

Do you come to Scotland often?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Alright, how many socialist countries allow you to choose not to wear a seatbelt?

---

What state are you from? Seat belts are mandatory in Ohio and lots of other states, as they should be. Your tax dollars are paying the bills of seatbelt-less car crash victims if you prefer the typical republican "it costs me money" objection to the the the "people die and get injured because they aren't wearing their seatbelt" objection.

Quote:

---

You do realise that you can have components of both socialism and capitalism to create a synthesis, a best of both worlds...

---

That's the way to go imo. Can you imagine a capitalist library system? Nothing on the shelves but stephen king and harry potter. They're already leaning too far in that direction anyway.