"Precisely where is the historical, functional working model of socialism that socialists can cite as proof that socialism works?"
You know, where socialists can point to a time in history and say, "Here, here it is. Here is the example of how socialism not only works, but succeeds?"
Something tangible and empirical that would provide economists, philosophers, politicians, sociologists, and even skeptics an actual model they could study and learn from and see with their own eyes how socialism works?
Because if that existed, then I could see where the left might have a point. They'd have empirical proof that socialism did indeed work (well, once, anyway), and we could study and learn from that example to see how and why. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. There is no example throughout all of history that socialism works or ever has worked*. And this simple observation has GRAVE ramifications not only for socialists, but for all of society. Namely, the left is gambling the entire economic future of the world world on a...
theory.
Ignore the millennia of historical and economic proof that a freer people do better than an enslaved one.
Ignore the billions of people who have died over thousands of years and hundreds of wars to grant us the freedoms of Western Civilization.
And ignore the morality of letting people keep the majority of the fruits of their labor.
No, you see some really good theoreticians in Academia over the past 50 years studied the ideas of an 1840's parasitic hack who lived off of his buddy Engel's and never worked for a living. And they have this theory, see? And this theory is to eliminate private property and put everything under the state. Never mind it's never worked once in the history of the world. And never mind that it usually kills more people through starvation than nuclear bombs did in war when implement. The difference is these really smart people have DOCTORATES in the LIBERAL ARTS, and they know more than the cumulative 30 billion people that have lived since the Greeks (and certainly more than you). So let's risk the entire world's population's freedom, futures, and livelihoods on a
It is this insane risk that not only appalls me, but frightens me. Damn well near half of the West's population (in the form of people who vote left) is willing to risk, basically everything, for a theory. A hunch. A gamble. A pathetic religion, just as unfounded as all the others, all so they can have "teh feelz" and actually fool themselves into thinking there's some magical path to a free lunch.
Of course, I wish it was only people's entire financial and economic futures the left is willing to gamble on an unfounded theory. But sadly, they don't stop there. Oh no. Enter in feminism.
Feminism today, no matter how you slice it, is simply matriarchy. That's cute you've all managed to train young college girls into thinking "it's just the equal treatment of men and women." (Very nice, now go participate in a slut walk and carry a mattress around). But I ask again, where in the entire history of the world does an example of a successful matriarchy exist? Is there any point in time forcing women to be men and vice versa resulted in a successful and longevous society? There's certainly examples of "matriarchies," but most of them are third-world crap-holes that don't have electricity (duly noting "Iceland," the one 1st world country dubiously included on the list, which STILL went bankrupt in 2007). Some might point to the Amazons of the middle east, but they are largely of Greek myth (and obviously short lived). About the ONLY historical account of a successful matriarchy was the AMAZONIANS (not to be confused with AMAZONS) of Futurama. And even there the entire male population was wiped out by Snu Snu.
But despite the absolute absence of a successful matriarchy (or perhaps "genderless society") those really smart, 1960's feminists had a theory, damnit! And that was the world's entire problems were caused by men! And if we could just get women to rule the world, then peace would ensue and we'd all be singing kumbaya together!
Of course, never mind this resulted in divorce rates not seen since ever. A decline in women's happiness. A division between the sexes. A welfare state. The replacement of fathers with a government check. And two full generations of mal-raised children. You see these self-important, upper-class, white feminists had a THEORY, and it was very important that they risk the entire romantic, familial, and love lives of the entire western world to make their socialist utopia a reality.
There's even a third unfounded theory the left insists gambling the future lives, safety, and happiness of the world on - multi-culturalism. Once again, show me where it's worked. Point me to the model where different races not only "tolerate" each other, but thrive and grow faster than they would separately. South Africa I think both blacks and whites agree it's not ideal. I'm sure if you talk to the Swedes in private about Malmo not everybody is happy. About the "best' model we have of true multi-culturalism is Brazil, and that is at best a second world, zika-infested, crap-hole.
But once again, the left have a THEORY. And by gum, despite there being no historical or empirical evidence (and a lot of genuine evidence to the contrary), they're going to shove multi-culturalism down your throats whether you like it or not. Because despite millions of years of evolution, history, and genetics, this time it's different because they're professors and academians from the 60's and 70's. And shucks howdy they know better than nature! (Oh, and by the way, if you disagree with them, then you're a racist).
The point is socialism, leftism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is a religion. It's a groundless, baseless, fanatical belief worthless people have to give their worthless lives faux meaning. And the three largest "tenets" or "principles" of the leftist religion today are forced economic equality, the elimination of the sexes, and the forced integration of the races. However, just like all religions, there is also no empirical proof that these things are preferable, let alone feasible. But feasibility and practicality be damned. It is more important to socialism's followers and zealots that humanity come to heel under their baseless religion than to let society advance, succeed, and live their lives as they see fit. Ergo leftists have no moral qualms about forcing humanity to gamble EVERYTHING, and I do mean, EVERYTHING on an ill-thought out, self-serving, psychotic theory, a bunch of ego-masturbating spoiled brat children from the 60's came up with.
The economic system that provides us the goods and services we need just so we can live?
Naw, let's tinker with it because Maduro and Chavez have a religious obsession with socialism.
The nuclear family which over 2 million years evolved to be the optimal structure to raise a family?
Screw that and screw the mental happiness and health of the children. We 60's feminists need validation for our doctorates in Women's Studies no matter how much it destroys the black community. Men are women, women are men, fish bicycle, exchange the father for a government check.
And the fact that humans naturally separate by race, though can peacefully interact with each other?
Screw that! Bring in a culture honeycombed with radical, suicide bombing, ideologues and let them lose among a population they're sworn to destroy.
In short, the left wants to risk everything that brings happiness, joy, and reason to live to satiate their religious egos. The ability of the economy to function normally and provide the necessities that are required for life. The ultimate happiness and joy that comes from finding love and having children. And the right to be safe and associate with whom you please. You take those three things away and you have the only real model of socialism that ever existed.
The USSR
North Korea
East Germany
Venezuela
Communist China
And the embryonic psycho circuses that Western nations are quickly becoming.
Only leftists could be so narcissistic, ego-maniacal, and evil to take such a gamble with other people's lives in the face of these historical odds all so in their little inferior minds they could play god for a short, mortal 75 years.
Oh well, enjoy the decline.
__________________________________________
http://www.soundcloud.com/aaron-clarey/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/
Amazon Affiliate
*Admittedly the left loves to run towards Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as the "working model" of socialism. Take away oil, you take Norway off the list. Give Sweden a couple more decades, and they will take themselves off the list. And Denmark highlights something all the handful of "successful" socialist models have - they're not that much more socialist than the US. Our taxation rates (bar Sweden) are all within 10% of each other. Add to this fact that the democrat party, not to mention all leftist/labor/left parties in Europe are still advocating MORE government, then obviously these countries are NOT the model they had in mind. They demand even more socialism.
The other minor thing is that outside these precious 4 Scandinavian exceptions to the rule, socialism's track record is horrible. For every Norway or Sweden there's 3-4 Ethiopia's, Zimbabwe's, North Korea's, USSR's, East Germany's, Greece's, Venezuela's, Cambodia's, China's, and Vietnam's. And not to mention the largest peace-time, and war-time death tolls. So before leftists come on here and present the "I Know a Tall Asian Argument," there really does not exist proof socialism has worked once in history.
