Posted on 07/21/2021 4:22:57 AM PDT by MtnClimber
How could it be that that Cuba and South Africa are staring into the abyss, with no food and no medicines when all the good people were agreed that they were the wave of the future?
The news out of Cuba and South Africa has been pretty gruesome this last week, what with anti-regime riots in Cuba and general looting in the ANC’s South Africa.
But Communist Cuba has been for over half a century the darling of our socialist friends, and South Africa has been the darling of our anti-racist friends. How could it be that these darling regimes are staring into the abyss, with no food and no medicines when all the good people were agreed that they were the wave of the future?
It all makes sense when you accept my maxim that all government is force plus loot and plunder.
But, I realized, my maxim violates the Einstein principle to make things as simple as possible but no simpler. It seems to me that there is a difference between the loot and plunder practiced by our beloved ruling class here in the USA and the loot and plunder practiced by the Castro family. The key question is who gets a share of the loot and plunder. Rather obviously, in Cuba, very few people get to share in the loot. Beyond the Castro family, I suppose that the drug lords in and out of the Cuban armed forces need to be included in the handout. In South Africa, it seems that the ANC politicians are in cahoots with the billionaires. In Chávez’s Venezuela, it has been necessary to deal in the armed forces, although we are told that “Children of Venezuela’s elite including ex-leader Hugo Chavez’s daughter flaunt wealth.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Ayn Rand called them the LOOTERS too.
bump
The rich would be richer for sure. But so would the middle class, and even the poor would be better off.
I'd rather be a nobody in Heaven than king of a dunghill. I don't know what commie dick-taters are thinking.
Christopher Chantrill - 1st class thinker... but needs to edit his stuff a few times.
I'd say your choice is solid.
But the socialists instead follow John Milton's Lucifer: "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." And, of course, Saul Alinksy dedicated his book to Lucifer. These people are not subtle.
To them, status is *the* most important thing.
They measure their worth by how many humans they can order about.
They would rather "rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven".
The beauty of Christian capitalism, as practiced in the USA, is it maximizes status for everyone, by limiting government power.
An assembly line worker may be president of his Bridge Club, fishing group, or highly regarded for his activity in the local charitable association.
The plethora of civic opportunities allow those who crave status the opportunity to gain it.
It also maximizes wealth by protecting private property, for all.
Got too many people thinking to reign in hell when the fact probably is that none of them will..They need to read their bibles to learn more truth about hell.
Marxists are waging an all out assault on society and history.
Ask them to name one single thing they like about America/Western civilization
If we just send 10,000-20,000 of our Super Smart woke college students to these two countries, they would be able to show the world how socialism is supposed to work...
“In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.” “1984”
The Wuhan flu has replaced war as the elites tool of choice, but the purpose has not changed.
Honeker in the DDR, Krustchev... The commies in China... It’s always the same.
Socialism has an appeal to those in power because it creates the necessary “stability” to remain in power, forever.
Socialism is appealing for business (at least in the beginning), because the government itself becomes something you can collude with and make a lot of money from.
Socialism is appealing to the ignorant masses because it promises free stuff, economic security, egalitarianism.
It’s hard to sell free market ideas and freedom. Sure, it’s the better option, but telling folks that you’re going to give them $1,400 checks in an election, that they are not responsible for their own plight like the frauds throwing themselves in front of the black community, preaching pay equality to women (even though there are reasonable reasons for this inequality), that resonates with people.
Example please.
I'd rather read a person with good ideas - like Christopher Chantrill - than a New York Times reporter wordsmithing democrat talking points. That said, this piece could have been smoother...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.