• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Socialism -- a pathway to disaster

shmogie

Well-Known Member



Tell that to literally all of Europe.[/QUOTE]
It didn't end the depression, but it buffered its effects. It kept Americans employed -- and fed.

The new deal was massive federal welfare program, one can certainly argue that it was needed, but the money going out was taxpayer money from a smaller and smaller tax base. I could not have been sustained for any length of time.

The big secret of the new deal is the most massive quid pro quo ever in American politics.

With all these programs to control, and all the money involved in making them work, Roosevelt demanded that senators, congressmen, governors, and state legislatures agree to his political demands, or their states would not receive the largesse of the American taxpayer.

He, in essence, used taxpayer money to finance the political agenda of the democrat party, on a massive scale.

So, these new ideas, weren't new, doling out tax money was the key, and that had been around for a long time.

They were new however,in one area, Out of work hungry people were used as hostages to ensure democrat demands in a large variety of areas in the states.

Money and programs flowed unhindered in Democrat states, it didn't flow in Republican states, until they bowed to the will of Roosevelt and the Democratic party.

An early example of the Democrat adage," never let a disaster go unexploited".

You can see it at play today in the Corona virus thing, Politics is everything to the Democrat party, anytime, anywhere, over anything.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There is some truth to the "why"!!! The problem is that they went from the pot and landed in the fire of worse corruption and people who still cling to power.... until a counter revolution happens.

Many of the former communist regimes evolved peacefully of their own accord, not through any violent counter revolution or civil war. In any case, none of them proved to be any kind of dangerous "threat" the US government was painting them as.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
By evidence of those who live there and give testimony of reality... he did NOT raise people out of poverty... he made everyone EQUAL in poverty. This isn't opinion.
No government is going to magically transform a poor country into a rich one. Pre revolution, government existed to keep the peasants in line and the country's wealth flowing to foreign overlords and a tiny elite.

The revolutions endeavored to cut the workers and peasants -- who actually produce the wealth -- in on part of the profit, rather than funneling it to the overseers and foreign interests. This, however, provoked a massive retaliation.
That's when the US corporate interests decided this would never do, and tried to overthrow the new leadership and take back control.
In Nicaragua they largely succeeded, even if only to ruin the economy as punishment. In Cuba they eventually drove the country into the hands of the Soviets. In both cases they stymied attempts to realize the original goals of the revolutions.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member

The people did NOT like Castro after his true colors came out.... but he had control

Did you actually watch that entire interview? Sanders was incredibly thoughtful and nuanced in his analysis of the situation and his reasoning for opposing Reagan's policies in Nicaragua. He was also careful to distinguish between authoritarian communism and genuine democracy.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Many of the former communist regimes evolved peacefully of their own accord, not through any violent counter revolution or civil war. In any case, none of them proved to be any kind of dangerous "threat" the US government was painting them as.
Many? Such as?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No government is going to magically transform a poor country into a rich one. Pre revolution, government existed to keep the peasants in line and the country's wealth flowing to foreign overlords and a tiny elite.

The revolutions endeavored to cut the workers and peasants -- who actually produce the wealth -- in on part of the profit, rather than funneling it to the overseers and foreign interests. This, however, provoked a massive retaliation.
That's when the US corporate interests decided this would never do, and tried to overthrow the new leadership and take back control.
In Nicaragua they largely succeeded, even if only to ruin the economy as punishment. In Cuba they eventually drove the country into the hands of the Soviets. In both cases they stymied attempts to realize the original goals of the revolutions.

Interesting take.... but it isn't what the Cubans were saying who actually lived through it.

As I visited and ministered to the Nicaraguan refugees in Honduras, they wouldn't agree with you. Especially those who lost their babies as they slit the belly of their pregnant wives.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Did you actually watch that entire interview? Sanders was incredibly thoughtful and nuanced in his analysis of the situation and his reasoning for opposing Reagan's policies in Nicaragua. He was also careful to distinguish between authoritarian communism and genuine democracy.
Since I actually talked to the Nicaraguans who fled the country by night and lost family along the way--I find Bernie's point of view mute.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Many? Such as?

Well, the USSR and Eastern Europe, for one (except Romania). China has reformed from the days when Mao ruled that country. Even Vietnam and Cuba have mellowed out considerably. They're not what they once were.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
As someone who lived in Venezuela and married a Venezuelan, have friends in Cuba and was in the neighboring countries when the Socialist Sandanistas were in power, I can't help but wonder how people can follow Socialism with Bernie Sanders leading the charge.

I have seen it again and again. They promise utopia, using real-life issues, and it ends up being worse than what they had when they started.

Example: Bernie's "Great education with Cuba -- you can't throw out the good of what he did"... really?

It was an education in communism and not in growing in education. It was an elimination of faith-religion and the promotion of the state religion of communism. Yes, graduated doctors in medicine with no medicine to treat the people. Yes, it was agriculture... but for export while each family had delegated 2 chickens a months (to eat), a few pounds of coffee, and other bare minimal sustenance to get you by while the cows were exported and if you killed one, certain prison time.

BUT THEY DID HAVE HOSPITALS FOR ALL AND EVERYONE WAS EQUAL... equal in poverty unless you were in the upper echelon and medicine shelves were bare.

I still remember in an interview with a Cuban pastor in the US (year ago when it was a rare event) - as he began to perspire profusely when asked questions about Cuba. Why? Because his family was still in Cuba and a wrong statement heard by other Cubans (who might be plants by the government) would mean disaster for their family.

So, what do we have today? What is the carrot on the hook of Socialism?

1) Free university education (as long as you don't mind getting the same pay as one who didn't go)
2) Free medical for all (as long as you don't mind not getting the treatment you want when you want it - IF - there are medicines
3) Everybody gets minimum wages $20/hr - you keep $10/ hour and then the government parcels out your monthly need.

See it happen again and again--and they say it would never happen! That is what THEY ALL PROMISED!

Bernie and the rest of them are no different. They are simply adding some heat to the frog in the water.

Are people blind?


Yet here you lord socialism, is it because is related to a church?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Well, the USSR and Eastern Europe, for one (except Romania). China has reformed from the days when Mao ruled that country. Even Vietnam and Cuba have mellowed out considerably. They're not what they once were.

Since my wife is Venezuelan and I still have family in Venezuela.... "Cuba has mellowed out" seems quite odd.

China reformed into what?

Opinion | China’s Gulag for Muslims
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Interesting take.... but it isn't what the Cubans were saying who actually lived through it.

As I visited and ministered to the Nicaraguan refugees in Honduras, they wouldn't agree with you. Especially those who lost their babies as they slit the belly of their pregnant wives.

Since I actually talked to the Nicaraguans who fled the country by night and lost family along the way--I find Bernie's point of view mute.

Given that is your experience of socialism I can understand how you would reach such a strong opposing view. I can respect that. :)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Given that is your experience of socialism I can understand how you would reach such a strong opposing view. I can respect that. :)
Thank you. Since it is the status quo, I tend to believe that is the ultimate destination as we slowly cook the frog.

Pilgrims saw the folly:

The Pilgrims’ Governor, William Bradford, described the folly of embracing the theory of collectivism:

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.

“For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors everything else, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

Socialism didn't work then and it won't work now. But, since we tend to forget history, we just repeat it again.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Since my wife is Venezuelan and I still have family in Venezuela.... "Cuba has mellowed out" seems quite odd.

Well, you have to admit, they're no longer the brazen revolutionaries they once were when Castro first took power. It used to be that one couldn't travel to Cuba, but now it's possible. There's been a thaw in relations between Cuba and the U.S.

China reformed into what?

Capitalists.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I think both have greed. That is why, IMV, we need Jesus. Now it is wealth with a purpose that is given (not taken) because one loves his brother as himself.

We all are ego-s that have some or other form of motivation and motivations differ. The primary motivation of a socialist will not be greed but its opposite, IMO.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
We all are ego-s that have some or other form of motivation and motivations differ. The primary motivation of a socialist will not be greed but its opposite, IMO.
Yes... there are always good hearted people.

But notice the dichotomy:

Socialists are not motivated by greed - yet they want to take from other people.
Capitalists are motivated by greed - yet they help get products to people, employ and sustain people.

WAAAAIT A MINUTE :screamcat:: Don't get me wrong.

There are capitalists who are motivated by greed... but to say socialists are not? Tell that to socialists Maduros and Castros of this world who have offshore accounts.

What about personal responsibility?
 
Top