Post: #1

Give it a trial run for 5 years:

Post: #2

Easy, just be sure the Socialist ticket is taken by a Zionist Dutch-Israeli-French candidate who honors no allegiance to the country he wants to rule, but to the Banksters and the Party of War, and the rest comes naturally.

Post: #3

The thread should be re titled in five years time - How to destroy neo-liberalism.

Post: #4

(04-27-2017 05:36 PM)gework Wrote:  Give it a trial run for 5 years:

Socialists have been ruling france for a century. The future president will also be a socialist. A hard core (Le Pen), or a more centrist one (Macron, that is an "independent" from the Socialist Party).

When we talk about socialism, we tend to think about leftism.
But not all socialism is Liberal and not all "Libertarianism" is conservative.
Nazism and Fascism are part of the Conservative Socialism. The EPP (European People's Party) is composed of a majority of Conservative Socialists (albeit less socialists that the previous).

Socialism as a leftist economy policy is, in it's essence indestructible. People are gullible and naive and they easily fall prey to "appeal to emotion" fallacies. We are caring beings and we do like to give and share. At the same time we are selfish and behave like Pontius Pilate, hence the systematic failure.

For some reason people see the spectacular fails of extreme Socialism around the world and keep voting for it. They find ways to rationalize, blame external factors, or just spin their hamsters. Just yesterday I had a facebook discussion with a guy saying the situation in venezuela is great and why would people stand in lines to go to empty shelves in supermarkets. Articles from several newspapers didn't do much. "It was just western Propaganda to dismiss the great doings of the Venezuelan government that does not bend to imperialists". The only answer you can give in this case is tell him to go to live in his paradise if it's so good over there.

So, my question is, what exactly do you want to destroy?
Socialism as an economic policy (extreme or traditional european?) or liberalism as a cultural policy?

Post: #5

For all its ills you're better off in a homogeneous society with a median level of socialism than a libertarian society with no cultural core.

Run-of-the-mill socialism wasn't the worst thing in the world for the europeans until the EU came along and they had to hamster up some kind of way to blend German economics and Greek economics. Now that the rapeugees are on scene it's destined to become an even worse clusterfuck of tribes competing to strip bare the body whole and get the most possible for themselves before the damn thing collapses.

The truth is if you walk down the street and don't see a mass of people that you feel some sort of basic compassion for and camaraderie with then socialism is not going to work out well.

Post: #6

(04-28-2017 06:37 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  So, my question is, what exactly do you want to destroy?
Socialism as an economic policy (extreme or traditional european?) or liberalism as a cultural policy?

Destroy: It was more of a joke. But as you go into, socialism is a system that will end up destroying itself. In the North European countries, with their balance between economic communism and pure capitalism, the government management is increasingly becoming economically unviable. I just read today the OECD is recommending the UK strip the top 10% of earners of the government pension completely; a government pension that they have paid in for maybe 30-50 years. If the pension was private this would be a crime. The UK government pensions are paid straight out of taxes, so there is no accrued interest or dividends. And the percentage of the government budget spent on pensions has been going up by 0.3% each year for about 20 years. It's like this accross the boar. The population has become weakened from increasingly having challenges removed from them and redistributed to others in the form of taxes. It's a system in which people who do what society tells them not to do are rewarded and those who do what they are told are punished. It's a system that is in slow decline as opposed to the more rapid descent of hard socialist governments.

I don't expect these systems to be around for much longer. But question is will we have a more economically free system at the end or will we fall into some sort of tyranny.

(04-28-2017 07:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  For all its ills you're better off in a homogeneous society with a median level of socialism than a libertarian society with no cultural core.

Run-of-the-mill socialism wasn't the worst thing in the world for the europeans until the EU came along and they had to hamster up some kind of way to blend German economics and Greek economics. Now that the rapeugees are on scene it's destined to become an even worse clusterfuck of tribes competing to strip bare the body whole and get the most possible for themselves before the damn thing collapses.

The truth is if you walk down the street and don't see a mass of people that you feel some sort of basic compassion for and camaraderie with then socialism is not going to work out well.

I agree that it may be better to live in a homogeneous social democratic society than a fractured libertarian society. Someone in Serbia recently asked me what candidate to vote for in their recent election. I looked at the candidates and found one who agrees with me that Serbia should be non-aligned, not join the EU, not join Russia's unions and not align with the US - it should be an independent country. He also wanted Serbia to have a welfare state comparable to Northern European countries, but he had the economic understanding that Serbia cannot currently afford a welfare state and the attempt to build one would send the country down the road of Venezuela - you can't socialise next to nothing. It would be better if the country became a functioning more socialist country than a dysfunctioning blob, even if the socialist state declined in the future, which would be inevitable.

And yes, if you care little for the people around you, that would hamper the functioning of a socialist system. It's ironic that these people who are obsessed with unlimited third world immigration also tend to be for big government, but there's few ways you could collapse a big government by flooding it with economic dead weight that is fracturing your society.

Personally I would prefer something along the lines of Hong Kong, where total taxation is 1/3 of what it is in Northern Europe, yet the results are much better: higher wages, about +10 IQ, more sustainable.

Post: #7

A strong constitution is an absolute must and we're starting to see the cracks in the old order appearing in every western nation on earth.

A flat and unerring tax rate set in stone for example would have stopped most of this madness in its tracks.

Personally I would love to see a government built around the pre-determination that only local government can levy funds from their citizens, that state government's have to levy their funds from local governments and that the federation has to levy their funds from the state governments.

THEN you would see some legitimate checks and balances.

Post: #8

The socialists actually got voted out because they weren't socialist enough. They actually passed pension reform and labor reform in France while he was in office. The later which caused tons of strikes across the country last summer.

Post: #9

I can see many large benefits from a bit of socialist policy.

Universal health care, socialising power supply, army, police, laws etc. A social safety net.

Of course this needs to be tightly managed so as not to erode the social contract and discourage hard work, reward and entrepreneurial effort.

But it can be done, and makes for a great society.

Too far to the extreame right or left is a bad thing, in my opinion.

Post: #10

The answer is memes.

Post: #11

(04-28-2017 06:37 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 05:36 PM)gework Wrote:  Give it a trial run for 5 years:

Socialists have been ruling france for a century. The future president will also be a socialist. A hard core (Le Pen), or a more centrist one (Macron, that is an "independent" from the Socialist Party).

^This.

The truly powerful ideas are the ones that are not explicitly stated, but the ones that are assumed by default.

French politics nowadays assumes socialism.

Post: #12

Why do you want to destroy the socialism?