https://x.com/toddhagopian/status/2082839803704344661?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Liberals get insanely mad when Walmart comes in with lower prices and puts the local stores out of business Liberals eat it up when the NYC Mayor puts in government-owned grocery stores with lower prices and puts the local stores out of business Make it make sense."
https://x.com/rockchartrand/status/2082822380611670407?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Socialism has never been a system where workers own the means of production. In practice, it's been a system where the state controls the means of production, with workers ultimately taking orders from political authorities. It has repeatedly served as a transitional stage toward more centralized state ownership. Capitalism doesn't force you to sell your labor. It simply means that if you want goods or services, you must offer others something they value in exchange. That can be labor, starting a business, freelancing, investing, or forming a worker-owned cooperative. Capitalism doesn't prohibit worker ownership—it allows it voluntarily. Socialism seeks to make one ownership model compulsory."
https://x.com/rockchartrand/status/2082833992651325461?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Socialism tends to treat need itself as the moral standard, with little regard for how that need arose. If need alone determines who deserves support, then the same standard applies to someone who cannot help themselves and to someone whose circumstances result from chronic irresponsibility or harmful choices. Charity is different. It is voluntary and allows the giver to judge context, helping those who cannot help themselves or those who genuinely try but still fall short, while refusing to reward those who repeatedly exploit others or refuse responsibility. Ironically, the people socialists say they want to help are already the people charity is most likely to prioritize, while a system based solely on need extends support to many whose behavior charity would reject."
2 comments:
1. This one is perfect!
2. Actually, this one is, too! It's a great way to describe the truth of the matter!
3. The "progressives" will pretend they don't do what this bit reveals is the case. Indeed, it's a common reason socialism fails every time. At some point, those who try find it's not worth the effort and they'll satisfy themselves with the minimum the system provides because they can still survive that way. Working hard and not being able to enjoy the fruits of one's hard work makes working hard nonsensical.
Yeah, the idea that Wal Mart engaging in fair competition is bad, while the government engaging in unfair competition is good is insane.
There is noting stopping a bunch of workers from pooling their resources and buying the means to produce whatever they want. The problem is that it is inefficient/impossible to run a business as a pure democracy and the enterprise either moves to a hierarchy or fails. On a national scale, it is inevitable that the (leaders of the) State owns the means of production under the misapprehension that the State=the workers. Then the leaders dole out the means of production to those whose favor they want to curry and allow them to do what they will.
Back on the USSR, workers inevitably found out that the "reward" for meeting their quotas was higher quotas and nothing else, so they simply stopped meeting their quotas. From agriculture, to manufacturing, Socialism has a brutal track record of inefficiency, poverty, starvation, and brutality. But we should obviously keep trying.
Post a Comment