I've been on a sicky today, so have spent (wasted?) time blogging away.
Why do people take up leftyism? I mean it has never ever worked wherever it's been tried. It has always destroyed wealth and trended to totalitarianism. So why do they keep trying to make it work?
It can only be power.
Socialism sounds good. It makes all the right noises. It promises a life of leisure and free money. It says it wants to make things 'fairer' (meaningless, I know, but it appeals). It says that profit belongs to everyone. It panders to idleness. But as has now been proved again it does not work. Ever. So perhaps lefty's see the opportunity to obtain power by promising the unobtainable. They tell the electorate that milk and honey is available to all if you give them power so they can share things out better. Sounds good. Of course once they're in it all goes horribly wrong almost immediately and they then spend all the time deceiving the electorate that everything really is alright and they just need a bit more money, your money, and they will sort it out.
So lies and deceit, and it has always been so.
Now these people can't be totally stupid. They must know this so why do they do it.
And the only answer can be power. They want it and as they see that they can get it by using 'socialism'. Once they've got it, whoopee, let's look after ourselves and our friends. Let's do everything we can to keep power. And that's it really. Nothing else makes any sense.
6 comments:
Correct. You could say the same for organised religion.
Narcissism + Projection + Envy = Leftism
You misunderstand the historical dialectic and resilience of the oppressive capitalist bourgeois system to the communist committees of free workers that oppresses the proletariat behind the factory gates and.. erm so on.
Actually, maybe it is just power. As you say its been proved an unmitigated disaster over and over. That Marx mumbo Jumbo..well they say Cuba's a paradise, but many drown trying to leave. And Berlin had to have a wall to keep people in. France's socialist movement cost it the war in 11 days in June 1940. Add in our times Mao's great leap forward that put China 20 years backwards, the success of North Korea in, erm, nothing. Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia,Hungry,Bulgaria.
Zimbabwe,Congo,Chad, Albania,Angola,The whole USSR..
What kind of a country had to have a black market in broken lightbulbs and chairs FFS?
Yet ask a lefty and they bang on about Sweden.
{light bulbs were the equivalent of 100p for a new one and 400p for a used one. But there were no new ones. Buy a burnt out one from the blackmarket, take it to the office manager and say its from your desk lamp, get a chit for a new one, take to the Ministry of Light, get new bulb which you take home.It was that or sit in the dark.}
Central planning.You can't beat it.
I'm not sure power is the only motivation. Having power in order to make a complete hash of things doesn't make sense unless you believe you are improving matters rather than making a hash.
There must (at least at the beginning) be an underlying belief that socialist central planning can improve things. This seems the most likely motivation of those who vote Lefty but never have any position from which they would exercise power themselves.
Once the few with power get in and start to enjoy all the trappings of wealth while depleting the wealth of the rest of the country, I can see personal greed as a major motivation for keeping power. As well, of course, as the intoxicating thrill that power itself gives.
Even at that stage we have to ask why Mr and Mrs Ordinary continue voting for the looters. They have no power themselves. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they believe the theory that central control is best and see a failure of central control as evidence that there simply hasn't been enough of it. So they vote for more and at that stage there are no further elections.
"It has always destroyed wealth and trended to totalitarianism."
just like capitalism!
Votecatcher.
Y'see, there you go again. The Big Lie technique - see above.
Capitalism by definition creates wealth, capital being wealth.
And we do not and never have practised, and nor do I recommend, 'capitalism'.
An 'ism' is a philosophy, as in SocialISM. 'Capitalism' as used by all of us that are not lefties is a description, not a philosophy. That's why it works. Socialism is a grand conceit that man has the capacity to design an economic system despite never knowing enough to be able to do so. It's failure is in its idea.
Post a Comment