« Bailing Out Sharia | Main | Open Thread »

Socialists detest private property. They hate entrepreneurs. Once in power, they take what they want in the name of the state. They "spread the wealth" around (mostly to themselves and the government...like it was THEIR money). Chavez is just an extreme example of what we're heading towards. We must stand against this stuff at all costs.

Just off the top of my head, a few of the organizations (besides the incoming administration) that don't much care for private property:

Green Peace

The Sierra Club

PETA

Earth First

The ACLU

MALDF (Mexican American legal Defense Fund)

The United Nations

CAIR

ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, NPR

To the extent the MSM has noticed at all, it's been, "Oh, look at that whacky dictator. Ain't that a hoot!" Never mind the thousands of jobs lost, or the lost economic opportunity, or the chilling effect this has on entrepreneurism.

I'm guessing the Moonbattery Troll Brigade does not see a problem here.

The AP article reads like it was written by an 6 year old and the Newsbusters piece by a 7 year old.

"even avoiding use of the word 'expropriating' until the third paragraph"

Read it again and tell me where "expropriating" would fit into the first two paragraphs.

And for the record... Chavez is a tinpot dictator, not a socialist. For socialism look to the Scandinavians. But also think about how much of our money is in the pockets of W's friends.

The former leader of the NATIONAL AUDBON SOCIETY one PETER BEARL said WE REJECT THE IDEA OF PRIVATE PROPERTY just typical of a socialists scumball ADUBONS EGRET GAVE BEARL THE BOOT SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

right lala - let's take a look at just who owns clinton. OH MY! same people who own everybody else! my terrible. immoral equivalency works both ways.

Reminds me of that classic movie CHOPPING MALL where security robots go on the rampage and blast some hottie in the head making it freaking EXPLODE!

Lalas' comment says a lot...

And for the record... Chavez is a tinpot dictator, not a socialist.

Most tinpot dictators actually are socialists. What do you call Castro?

For socialism look to the Scandinavians.

We have, and the only thing impressive is their (so far) lack of secret police. Looks nice on the surface, but the Debt of Damocles is hanging over their heads. And there's no way I'm taking a stroll through beautiful Malmo, Sweden without a gun.

But also think about how much of our money...

Our money? As in, some of it's mine? Shit, when did they break in? I don't remember being mugged or anything, so they must have broken in while I was at work.

No, on second thought, I know exactly where my money went (well, the part that Gubbermint 'lets' me keep, anyway). I spent it. What I spent it on is nobody else's business, but it wasn't stolen. I'm free to spend it wisely or foolishly, because that's what freedom means. Socialism tries to curb that freedom (or eliminate it entirely, in the case of the investors mentioned in the article above).

...is in the pockets of W's friends.

Damn big pockets those must be, to hold all that money. And here I thought the liberal wisdom was that they keep it in a vault next to their beds and roll around naked in it every night like Scrooge McDuck! Wait, no, those evil 'ol fat cats don't have it shoeboxes in the hall closet, they went and INVESTED it (greedy bastards). Doing that made money available for businesses to start (or stay afloat), jobs and wealth to be created, standards of living to be improved. Heartless f*ers, why aren't they pissing it away on the proven failures of socialsm? Then, they could sit in the dark in their tar-paper shack & feel really good about all the moral superiority they've created by lowering everyone's standard of living to that of Venezuela.

Ah, yes, lovely Venezuela. A country sitting on top of one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and they have to ration food. Ain't socialism wonderful?

Now hiram, lala warned you about using "socialism" indiscriminately. That last line should read "ain't TINPOT-ISM wonderful".

Parsing words is what lala and his/her friends are all about. The Titanic could be sinking, and they'd be calling it "taking on water in an unregulated fashion".

Whether it's property rights, Global Warming Climate Chaos Crisis, socialism, "spreading the wealth" or anything else, they'll nuance it and spin it and obfuscate it until it fits their agenda. To them, the Hindenburg would have been a "high temperature actuated rapid descent mode".

Yup, I knew one of the socialist trolls would come around and defend Chavez, while simultaneously denying that he is one of their own.

As for the Scandis, the Swedes recently cut their corporate tax rate. It's now 28%, 20% lower than current U.S. rates and about 33% less than were Chairman 0 wants them to be. Seems the Scandis are admitting what our trolls can not... socialism fails.

Um... at what point did I defend Chavez? The guy's a represive dictator and a total jackass, I wouldn't (and DIDN'T) defend him. My point was that HE does not define socialism. My other point wasa both articles sucked.

I would also argue that none of you have defined socialism either, other than "I knows it when I sees it, and Obama's one of 'em."

Oh yeah...
Hiram, the $10T that the US is in debt WE will have to pay back, so yes it is OUR money. And I would call Castro a dictator as well. His main philosophy is dictatorship, socialism is a distant second, Chavez too.
Nanc, keep your vitriol straight. I never mentioned Clinton and btw, not a huge fan, my main complaint about him is that he IS owned.
Matt, the Titanic sank, the Hindenburg blew up, Castro is a dictator and socialism would never work in America...

But, we should strive for the part of socialism that gives a squirt of piss about whether our countrymen have access to medical care. The capitalist part of health care would rather see you dead than lower the bottom line.

Defense: "Read it again and tell me where "expropriating" would fit into the first two paragraphs."

If a dictator confiscating property for state use isn't expropriation than what what is it?

Hugo Chavez on socialism: “Those who want to go directly to hell can follow capitalism... and those of us who want to build heaven here on earth will follow socialism.”

Sounds like he professes himself to be a socialist. But is that enough? Well, let's see, has he nationalized state industries? Yes... Has he replaced market pricing with state-dictated prices on goods? Yes... Does he rail against capitalism with the enthusiasm of a Huffington Post featured columnist? Yes... Has he redistributed wealth? Yes...

By any reasonable measure, Hugo Chavez is a socialist dictator, as indicated by his words and his actions. And so is Robert Mugabe.

It is possible to be both a socialist and a tinpot dictator. Not only are the two not mutually exclusive... they most often go hand-in-hand.

And those socialist health care schemes don't tend to work out so well either. The fetid hospitals in England, the year long waits for emergency surgery in Canada are a testimony to that. When the government runs public housing, it builds slums. When the government runs pensions, it gives us a bankrupt social security system. How stupid does one have to be to think they could run health care any better?

But, we should strive for the part of socialism that gives a squirt of piss about whether our countrymen have access to medical care. The capitalist part of health care would rather see you dead than lower the bottom line.

LALAS, that's a load of crap. A socialist health system has NEVER worked. The fact that you bring that us DOES mean that you are defending a socialist system WHETHER YOU MEAN TO OR NOT.

"He said the sprawling six-story building might be put to better use as a hospital or university."

Where will Chavez get the doctors or teachers for this NEW project? Oh well, I'm sure he'll simply APPOINT some, right Lalas?

Lala kind of illustrates how leftists get through life by playing word games and denying reality. "Chavez isn't a socialist." "Socialized health care works!"

See also... "Global Warming is caused by humankind." "The New York Times strives to be objective." and "The collapse of the financial industry had absolutely nothing to do with leftists pressuring banks to make loans to uncreditworthy minorities."

socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|

noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.

~ Oxford English Dictionary

Chevez is the embodiment of Socialism and speaks for "the community as a whole," as does Castro. And note that the definintion of Socialism stipulates " should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." "Owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Get it? And the voice of the community as a whole is?

I swear, trolls do not own dictionaries.

I swear, trolls do not own dictionaries.

The idea that words should have fixed meanings is oppressive, patriarchal, and worst of all, "non-inclusive."

/troll logic

DINO: Extolling 'acceptance' and 'tolerance' since the Devil gave birth to 'him'.

And for the record... Chavez is a tinpot dictator, not a socialist.

News flash: Most socialists are, in fact, dictators whether tin pot or not. Chavez is one of them.

Unless you think nationalizing the oil industry constitutes laissez-faire capitalism, of course.

Supporters of socialism are always trying to weasel out of taking responsibility for what happens in actual socialist countries. "Oh the Russians weren't socialists, they just said that they were." What you fools don't understand is that socialism is defined by what happens in socialist countries. It's not defined by what Noam Chomsky tells you is its definition. Socialists are the most dishonest people in existence.

For socialism look to the Scandinavians.

Um no. The Scandinavian countries are largely centre-left. That they retain property rights and so forth is a function of their centrism, not their socialism. That they have the money to fund the social programs that they provide is a function of the whole-hearted embrace of capitalism that they maintain. They are socialist by dint of incorporating some principles of socialism into the broader Judeo-Christian/capitalist traditions of western societies; NOT the other way around.

But also think about how much of our money is in the pockets of W's friends.

Since by "W's friends" you presumably mean rich Americans, perhaps you should look at some numbers on contribution to tax revenue. Of every dollar that provides every single government program or handout that you (as a presumably put-upon working class or middle-class American citizen) enjoy, at least 50 cents is paid by "the rich." How on earth you rationalize large salaries that are paid to rich people from the wealth their enterprizes or companies create as being "your money" is quote beyond rational explanation. Unless, of course, you're talking about the bailouts, in which case you'd almost have a point .. Were it not for the fact that their financial contributions demonstrate the recipients of most of those bailouts to be very much friends of Democrats, not Republicans.

Posted by: Lalas at December 23, 2008 12:15 PM

Its amazing how people still think The Rich = The Republicans. That may have been true 50 years ago, but not now. These days more often than not The Rich support Democrats - why? They have tax accountants to see to it they avoid paying the official tax rates. While the near rich (ordinary millionaires - small - medium sized business owners tend to be conservatives/Republicans - the two arent necessarily the same thing) and they tend to be too busy running their businesses to take advantage of loopholes the super rich do. Those billionaires like Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg who supported Obama. Then theres pretty much all of Hollywood - who 90% of the time are lefties - with their mansions worth tens of millions, $100 million per movie deals, fleets of luxury cars/jets, ect. They too have tax attorneys and accountants sheltering their income - often in foreign countries.

That's part of it, anonymous. The other reason the rich support Democrats is that Democrats want to keep people where they are in the socio-economic order. Conservatives want people to advance. The rich find the idea of poor people getting rich threatening.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 24, 2008 5:48 AM
Posted by: V the K at December 24, 2008 6:49 AM

The richer you are the more tax you can avoid paying, generally speaking. The greater tax burden that can be placed on one's up-and-coming competitors, the harder it is for them to compete.

On another, not-really-off topic note (via a safe link to the Dummie Funnies), here's the Democratic netroots take on the Christmas spirit:

"The Wealthiest 1% Should Immediately Have ALL Of Their Assets Seized"

"Never mind the Bush tax "cuts", it's time to roll back the REAGAN tax "cuts". I'm also in favor of a 100% "death tax" for inherited income. . . ."

"Will Obama be our hero and seize the assets of the top 1%?"

"If they ever sell lottery tickets for gutting and skinning them, I'll be first in line with an assortment of Ginsu knives"

"Wouldn't it be interesting to examine who wrote the Constitution and how it represented certain vested interests. . . . Not too difficult to see who identifies with the ruling classes here."

And the money quote:

Obama views the constitution as a list of negative values so maybe he can change it.. Then we can make the greedy wealthy pay.

Every failed Socialist state, the Soviet Union, Red China (when it's economy was Socialist), Pol Pot's Cambodia, Cuba, etc... gets denied by Socialists at one time or another. This is merely a politically expedient necessity.

Socialism runs the spectrum from democratic Socialism to Communism. Unless it is generously mixed with Capitalism, allowing free enterprise to flourish, Socialist economies will always fail.

As the historical record has shown over the last 100 years.