Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Venezuela: The Failure of Socialism

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by omya, Aug 28, 2017.

  1. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    In Venezuela we are living, once again, the shortcomings of socialism and the reasons behind this system’s failure in all the countries where it has been established.

    Even the government’s own indicators, through the Central Bank of Venezuela (Banco Central de Venezuela: BCV), tell the sorry tale. June 2013 ended with inflation of 4.7 percent and an estimate of 56.4 percent for a single year. That comes after inflation of 39.9 percent over the past twelve months, including 57.4 percent for food. Further, the shortage index admitted by the BCV is 19.3 percent (although experts point out that the index is indeed above 30 percent).

    But inflation at home is just the start. The difference between the official exchange rate and the unofficial exchange rate in the black market is gigantic — around 450 percent. The official rate is Bs.6.30 (Venezuelan bolivares fuertes) per US dollar, while the unofficial rate is above thirty, and the prices for most consumer goods follow this unofficial dollar exchange rate. Despite being an oil-producing country, Venezuela received the lowest influx of investment in the South American region. We have the lowest productivity rate of the continent. To rub salt into the wound, according to the Global Barometer of Corruption, published by Transparency International, we are among the countries with the least amount of transparency and clarity in the management of our public resources.

    There are two typical traits of socialism currently in Venezuela: inefficiency and corruption.

    Nicolás Maduro bumped into the demanding challenge of leading an interventionist state that grew over fourteen years, similar to obesity, in an unhealthy and abnormal way. It grew in size by means of expropriating efficient private companies, only to manage them into bankruptcy — such are the shameful cases of Lácteos Los Andes and Agroisleña, companies which specialized in the distribution of land fertilizers.

    The government’s desire to control and monitor all economic activity led to the approval of a mass of inconvenient laws, which became enemies of investment, production, and innovation. The Ley Orgánica del Trabajo is just one example, which banned outsourcing, mandated 90 percent of a company’s employees be citizens, and impeded one’s capacity to remove unproductive individuals; it harms the national economy as well as the working classes. Since that legal instrument came into force last May, it has become increasingly difficult to create a job in the formal sector of the economy, while at the same time the productivity of workers has decreased at an alarming rate.

    The price controls (or price-freezing process) and the fixed exchange rate (established in February, 2003) remain as a policy, regardless of the fact that they completely distort our country’s economy and against all evidence of their ineffectiveness and inconvenience.

    Within the supporters of the government or “oficialismo,” there is a passionate discussion, which can be followed by the Aporrea website, about the line of actions that should be carried out by Maduro. The radicals support the government’s position to avoid any kind of business agreements with the private sector and criticize any kind of negotiation with the national “bourgeoisie.” They insist that the revolution should be deepened by future expropriations and nationalizations, the expansion of collectivism and the promotion of social property. Their goal is to suffocate private property until it is reduced to an insignificant level.

    This extremist section insists on pious calls to strengthen the “revolutionary moral” and to fight corruption by reinforcing social audits and punishments for those responsible for supposedly fraudulent acts. This group uses extreme levels of dynamism and claims to want anarcho-communism in its purest form — regardless of how conflicting the goals of elimination of property and hierarchy may be. They attack, vilify and have cornered the fraction of the more moderate social democrats of the “oficialismo.” This more moderate sector, therefore, chooses to keep shameful silence when faced with the irresponsible radicalism of the Maoists and Cheguevarians who are calling to the radicalization of the process.

    The outcome of this confrontation within the “oficialismo” is not clear. What we know with certainty is that if the Marxists and what they advocate for win, the country will be lost in even worse chaos, similar to what occurred in Chile during the final stages of Salvador Allende’s government. The supporters of the Maoist left forced the president right into the abyss of confiscations and expropriations. There was no place for acceptance, obedience, or moderation. The economy collapsed. Chile went into bankruptcy. The end results of this suicidal jump are widely known and painful — no need to go over them.

    The oil production in Venezuela grants the governments with benefits and strategies that were certainly not available to Allende. But this buffer is loosing strength. The “Venezuelan socialism” is indeed identical to the one seen in other parts of the world. The central planning strategy and the socialization and collectivization of the productive agents are part of a system that can only end in failure. Venezuela is suffering its consequences.

    https://panampost.com/trino-marquez/2013/07/18/venezuela-the-failure-of-socialism/
     
    Wolfpack and Dagger like this.
  2. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    How's Socialism Doing in Venezuela?

     
  3. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    Venezuela’s Example Confirms that Socialism Only Brings Failure

    [​IMG]
    Without the free market, socialists would have no way of determining the prices of anything. (FEE)

    By Marian L. Tupy

    Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet dictator between 1953 and 1964, allegedly said that when “the world is socialist, Switzerland will have to remain capitalist, so that it can tell us the price of everything.”

    Just as it was important that the Communist world be continuously exposed to at least one country that got its economics right, such as Switzerland, so it is instructive for the capitalist world to be continuously exposed to at least one country that gets its economics wrong, such as Venezuela.

    Communists Actively Needed Capitalism

    Khrushchev, like all early communists, believed in the eventual triumph of socialism. In the early 1920s, the Soviet Union sold some of its best art to American millionaires, such as the US Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, in order to raise funds so that they might prevail in the Russian Civil War.

    The Communists believed that they would get the paintings back after communism triumphed in the United States. In the event, America got the National Gallery of Art, while the Russians were left with empty rooms at the Hermitage.

    But, Khrushchev’s point about Switzerland was a serious one. Early opponents of socialism, including Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, pointed out that without the free market, socialists would have no way of determining the prices of anything.

    In a capitalist economy, nobody sets the prices of goods and services (unless, of course, one considers heavily regulated parts of the economy such as the American healthcare system under Obamacare). Prices emerge “spontaneously”, depending on supply and demand. Socialist countries, in contrast, employ thousands of bureaucrats who try to estimate future supply and demand, and incorporate those estimates into Soviet five-year plans.

    By Khrushchev’s time, it was clear that Soviet “plans” were not worth the paper they were scribbled on. The failure of central planning explained both the shortages of basic goods in the USSR and the need for an independent and capitalist Switzerland.

    Conversely, it is useful for people in free-market democracies to be constantly reminded of the consequences of alternative economic and political arrangements, such as those in contemporary Venezuela.

    https://panampost.com/editor/2017/0...-confirms-that-socialism-only-brings-failure/
     
    Wolfpack and Dagger like this.
  4. Angel Eyes

    Angel Eyes 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    152
    Country Flag:
    India
    Good and informative article....
     
  5. nik141993

    nik141993 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    415
    Country Flag:
    India
    Venezuela didn't failed because of socialism but because of corruption & drug Mafia running the state
     
  6. A_poster

    A_poster Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    1,591
    Country Flag:
    India
    [​IMG]
     
    Rajaraja Chola, omya and Wolfpack like this.
  7. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States

    Agree, some countries that have socialism function very well and have a better standard of living then the USA. Denmark
    • Finland
    • Netherlands
    • Canada
    • Sweden
    • Norway
    • Ireland
    • New Zealand
    • Belgium
     
    TrueGR!T likes this.
  8. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

    In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

    A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

    In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

    Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

    In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?

    The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

    If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

    However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

    The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.
     
  9. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    Prices

    The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

    For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

    The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

    The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

    Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

    From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

    Profits and Losses

    Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

    By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

    Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

    Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

    Private Property Rights

    A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.

    The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

    When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

    Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

    As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.
     
  10. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    Incentives Matter

    Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

    No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.

    By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.

    As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.

    We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.

    The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

    Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, Social Security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.

    Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

    The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.

    Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

    The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

    https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-failed/
     
  11. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The fact is socialism works well for
    Denmark
    • Finland
    • Netherlands
    • Canada
    • Sweden
    • Norway
    • Ireland
    • New Zealand
    • Belgium

    • and would work well for countries that were well managed.
     
  12. Vergennes

    Vergennes Strategist Staff Member MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    1,087
    Country Flag:
    France
    These countries are not really 100% socialists,they just combine an extended welfare state with a successfull market economy,which isn't the case for Venezuela..
     
    omya likes this.
  13. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,357
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Not sure any country is 100 percent socialist or 100 percent anything else.
     
  14. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    Why Socialism Sucks

    Let’s take a stroll down Memory Hole Lane. Let’s go back to that sunny day in 2008, when Kenya’s favorite socialist, Chairman Barack Hussein Obama, said this to a plumber :

    ——————————————————————————–

    “…I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” –Barack Hussein Obama to Joe the Plumber

    ——————————————————————————–

    Chairman Obama didn’t say anything profound here. This has been the mantra of the villianous Left ever since Woodrow Wilson segregated the Armed Forces. It’s a tenet of the Social Justice Gospel that states the rich must pay through the nose since it’s pretty “obvious” that they must have “cheated” the system to get what they have.

    Another way to put it is this:

    ——————————————————————————–

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” –Karl Marx

    ——————————————————————————–

    Both quotes call for the redistribution of wealth. Both quotes talk about who needs to give the wealth and who needs to get it. However, neither quote addresses the most important questions: Who gets the wealth ? Why do they deserve it ?

    Marx and our Dear Leader never bothered to address the questions of ‘who gets it ?’ and ‘why do they deserve it ?’. However, I use my head for more than a hat rack and unlike Chris “I’ll Have Another Drink” Matthews (Hat Tip: The Great One, Mark Levin.), I don’t bloviate to hear myself bloviate. I speak the truth. Without further ado, I will now show how socialism sucks.

    To prove my point, I’m going to enlist some friends of mine: Subject A, Subject B, Subject C, and Subject D.

    Subject A is your typical working stiff. He goes to work every day, despite the fact that he hates his job and his boss. He deals with unreasonable customers, nonsensical demands from the bookkeeper, and works the crappiest hours you could think of. He has bags under his eyes, high blood pressure, and back pain that never seems to go away. He takes it all in stride since this is what he has to do take care of his family. He pays his taxes, (federal, state, and local) obeys the law, and in general, is a good citizen.

    Subject B is a burned out teacher. At one point, Subject B was an average (at best) teacher, but no longer. Thanks to tenure, Subject B was all but untouchable, despite getting poor review after review. Thus, Subject B was able to survive 32 years in the public school system without so much as breaking a sweat. Subject B is getting ready to retire, with a guarantee that she’ll receive at least 80% of her final salary, which is a rather generous $83,500 per year.

    Subject C is a welfare recipient. She is a living, breathing example of a “welfare queen”. She has four kids, two with one father, one with another man, and one that she has no idea who the father is. She recieves state aid, along with Food Stamps, Medicaid, and unemployment. Oh–I forgot! She’s pregnant again! Who’s the father ? I dunno and neither does she.

    Subject D is an illegal alien. He pays no taxes, but has access to all kinds of goodies from the Sanctuary City he lives in. He gets free health care, his kids can go to school and get “free” breakfast and lunch. He doesn’t speak English, but there’s no need to learn. After all, the Big Mommy Regime will print any form he needs in his native tongue and will always provide a translator when he needs to know how many more freebies are out there for him to take advantage of.

    So tell me: Why does Subject A have to pay for B, C, or D’s crap ? Why does A owe B,C, or D anything ?

    Now, your average lib fingersniffer thinks he has an answer: compassion. “That’s the price you pay to live in a civilized society. What would you do, let people starve ? How much is enough ? How much do you really need ? Blah, blah, blah, 2+2=5, yadda, yadda yadda.” But, if you’ll note, there is NEVER, ever, compassion for the Subject A’s ,who are, in reality, the majority of Americans.Your below average wallet chain wearing, tattooed, Media Matters believing lib never takes into consideration the fact that to give B, C, and D anything, it must be first taken by FORCE from A. Never mind the fact that Subject A is up to his eyeballs in debt and could really use the money for his own bills, he has to pay for B and C’s leisure time. Never mind the fact that Subject A would like a brand new AR-15 or a laptop that doesn’t crash all time, A must pay to subsidize to D’s criminal lifestyle. Where the hell is the compassion in that ? It’s Subject A who earned the money, why are B, C, and D entitled to it ?

    There are no answers to any of the questions that socialism brings up. Yes, we must love our neighbor as the Bible commands, but “love thy neighbor” does not mean “support thy neigbor while he sips a margarita on a hammock while you work yourself into an early grave.” Ethically, as a society, we have a responsibility to care for those who TRULY can not care for themselves, (wounded veterans, children, the very elderly, the infirm, etc.) but we have no responsibility to those who refuse to do so, like Subjects B, C, D. That’s why socialism sucks. It can’t answer the most basic of questions: Why

    https://www.redstate.com/diary/absolutelynobama/2011/03/05/why-socialism-sucks/
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  15. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India
    THE WORLD LEARNS: SOCIALISM SUCKS

    Recently, I heard popular host Glenn Beck state that he had eliminated the word “evil” from his vocabulary, the rationale being that he believed it would thwart efforts for conservatives to “come together” with their political opponents to solve the problems facing our nation.

    I acknowledge the fact that Beck has done a lot over the years toward educating his audience concerning the machinations of global socialists, first on Fox News television and later through his online network, The Blaze. However, as I’ve indicated previously, sometimes the host goes too far in his self-styled Mormon flower-child modality with regard to the reality of dealing with said political opponents, their ruthlessness, lack of ethics and intractability.
    Even though it has not always been a pervasive belief among Western Christians, as a Christian, I can certainly concur with Beck’s belief that love is the highest ideal a person can have. That said, notions of brotherly love and “coming together” are naïve at best when it comes to political opponents who are wholly dedicated to eradicating an opponent’s system of belief, governance or population, whether by attrition or by the sword.

    Typically, this sort of political opponent is referred to as an “enemy.”

    The half-billion people murdered, maimed and enslaved by socialists of varied stripes during the last century ought to be sufficient proof of their ruthlessness, lack of ethics and intractability. Likewise, Islam’s 1,400 years of blind zealotry, as well as the murder and mayhem perpetrated by Islamists during that time (to say nothing of the same perpetrated by Islamists over the last couple of decades alone) ought to be sufficient proof of their inability to come to accords with their opponents.

    Over the last couple of years, we have seen key indicators that citizens of Western nations who’ve had socialism and its attendant social engineering devices rammed down their throats over the last 50 years have had enough.

    With regard to immigration, for example: Europe is obviously further along than America with respect to the machinations of international socialist politicos. Now, we are seeing a strong response to the doctrine of European leaders having welcomed millions of individuals from culturally bankrupt nations over the last 50 years. Those who have refused to assimilate and treat the largesse of Europeans as their birthright have become a poisonous, indigestible mass in the European body politic.

    This isn’t an instance of Westerners being bigoted, creepy Christian dogmatists, particularly in the case of Europeans. Europe accounted for 66.3 percent of the world’s Christian population in 1910. Today, it represents 25.9 percent. The proportion of European Christians has dropped from 94.5 percent of the population to 76.2 percent in 100 years.

    Over time, Westerners, whether Europeans, Canadians or Americans, have begun to find the insidious aspects of socialism that were dramatically misrepresented to them by politicians, akin to having ingested spoiled food. One doesn’t get sick right away, but when it sets in, it’s something one never forgets.

    These people are not ideological conservatives either, nor have they identified socialism as the name of their pain – yet. They just know that their paychecks don’t go nearly as far as they used to, they’re far less safe, their entertainment media has become shameless left-wing propaganda, and their children are being indoctrinated in school rather than educated.

    Other than the election of Donald Trump to the presidency (the most notable byproduct of this phenomenon), there are myriad examples of plain folk expressing their disgust with socialist encroachment. Brexit, the United Kingdom’s effort to extricate itself from the European Union is certainly one of these. Citizens’ expulsion of their government in Iceland a few years ago is another.

    In the corporate world, the shrinking coffers of the NFL and ESPN followed those companies’ tolerance of anti-American expression among certain pro football players and sportscasters, respectively. Big-box giant Target is currently hemorrhaging top executives and cash, the result of that organization becoming a corporate activist for the homosexual agenda.

    It was one thing for Westerners to view from afar the desolation of Soviet Russia, Cuba and other nations that went socialist during the last century, or to muse over oil-rich Venezuela being flat broke due to hard-line socialist policies – but the foregoing declines have struck too close to home for comfort.

    With regard to the opening paragraphs and concepts of evil and enmity: Most people can recognize evil when they see it; obviously, this holds true even among societies in which leftist moral relativism abounds. There is a danger to the excising and modification of language in that it smacks of the Orwellian – the politically correct moral relativism, social engineering and borderline mind control so often employed by socialists. They’ve even gone so far as to modify or negate such terms as “good” and “evil” to advance amorality and secure political gains.

    Increasing numbers of those who have known liberty under Western constitutions and democratic republics are coming to realize that a chief consequence of this strategy has been an erosion of their liberties and a decline in their quality of life – which I suppose breathes new life into the axiom referencing not being able to fool all of the people all of the time.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/the-world-learns-socialism-sucks/#AZc6Pzl8DZDZTBGj.99
     

Share This Page