Posted on 05/05/2006 9:51:03 AM PDT by Jane2005
Socialism may well spring back to life with a force shocking to those who have declared socialism to be no longer viable. Lee Harris on the challenge that capitalism faces today. Whether it will rise to the challenge is perhaps the most urgent question of our time.
I agree. However, you don't have to be a poverty stricken country to accept socialism. My Scandinavian and Israeli associates believe that socialism provides freedom. Since they don't have to worry about health care, unemployment checks (plenty of socialists are unemployed, but they get checks longer than we do), they are free to pursue life's higher callings rather than worry about providing for themselves. (don't you just love intellectuals?)
I don't understand why people don't want to be in control of their own lives.
"I never understood why people thought communism was DEAD AND NO LONGER A THREAT when the most populated country in the world (China) along with North Korea and others still practiced it."
China no longer even PRETENDS to practice communism. Or do you call a country with a growing (dare I say it!) Capitalist economy, growing rates of personal income, and a stock market a communist country?
What the Chinese practice is a hybrid; capitalism is "good" so long as it is not followed by the (natural) progression between personal property and wealth and political rights.
In a nutshell, the Chinese looked north and saw what had happened to the Soviet Union and determined that was not going to hapopen in the Middle Kingdom. So, they gave people the illusion of freedom (go make all the money you want and can), while maintaining control of the apparatus of state (you might be rich, but we're still in charge. Now be a good little fellow and go back to your PlayStation, Whirlpool refrigerator and personal autombile and forget politics). However, they will pay the price when the population finally realizes that they need to protect that money from the very same State apparatus.
Personal wealth, private property and economic self-interest (and the need to protect them from the ravages of the State) are the precursors to a hue and cry for political freedom.
Evil will never die.
I've seen similar assessments and don't agree. When the Berlin Wall, and the Iron Curtain fell, China was still a communist state. And it is still a communist state today. The so-called "capitalism" that exists within it's boundaries only serves to prop up the current regime, which is the reason it was permitted.
That's particularly true because of the existence of today's Welfare state. It was not so true throughout most of U.S. history.
Very true. That same attitude is prevalent throught most of Europe and the Western World most of which has become largely socialized.
The above is where we disagree. The current regime will permit only the amount of capitalism it requires to stay in power. China is still a communist state based on Maoism which is somewhat different from the the Soviet Union style communism, based on Leninism.
Because way to many people(some freepers included) get off sexually on the control they have over other peoples lives under socialist policys check out the smoking threads on the pufflist keyword sometimes
maybe you would like to answer this question ?
Since when is it possible to practice communism in the shadow of capitalism? The two are completely incompatible with one another. There has never been, and never will be, a state in which rampant, market capitalism is practiced with government sanction, and in which communism is accepted as the preferred system of government.
What you have in China is something much closer to National Socialism than it is communism, where the private businessman is allowed to conduct (or stay in) business, and to even make as good a living as he possibly can, but the means by which he makes that living "belong" to the State. He is, in effect, a manager of a state-governed concern, even if he actually owns the concern itself.
So long as the state gets it's cut, no one seems to care.
Where it differs from national socialism and communism, however, is in the belief that an economy can be planned independant of external market forces.
Socialism is nothing but a means to political power for people with serious character flaws, people most of us think of simply as "scumbags", "liberals" and "Democrats".
Regards,
LH
ping
... because there's always some free-loader looking for the easy way out of doing an honest days' work.
Thanks, but I will let Gabz take a stab at this.
I think it was based on false hope. Personally, I knew the 1990s were nothing but an aberation. As we were watching the CNN reports of the collapse of Soviet Communism, I remember saying to my wife, "Islam will become the next enemy." Not long after that I realized the Left would make common cause with Islamofacism based on Lenin's dictum "No enemies to the Left." Sure enough, they are joining forces in Europe, S. America, and other parts of the world. They are natural allies, since the religion of Islam has many ideological points in common with Socialism. Both Islam and Communism are naked despotisms.
It's very simple. Socialism appeals to the fantasy that you can get something for nothing...and furthermore, it provides a theoretical means of how it can be achieved, namely, organised theft from people that are the subject of envy anyway.
Regards, Ivan
Because there is always a certain number in the population that want something for nothing. They believe that Socialism provides them 3 hots and a cot, and they don't have to do much to get it. They are empty shells that find freedom and capitalism just to darn hard work. In Short they are the lazist of the lazy.
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.