Chavez and Nasser: two Left-wing, anti-American, racist, anti-Semitic, pan-nationalistic socialist demagogues.
Some interesting analysis here, by PUBLIUS PUNDIT. (And TJ notes pro-Chavez puffery from the MSM here.)
Not to be overlooked: the fact that Chavez is actually aiding the jihadoterrorists (who are - NOT COINCIDENTALLY - ALL SOCIALISTS!). (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.)
One of the things that is so WEIRD about this - to me - is the "time-warp" aspect: Marxism has been absolutely thoroughly discredited (in the former USSR, in China, in India, in Korea, etc.), yet it still has populist appeal. WHY!? Because socialism exploits the covetousness so common in each and everyone of us; socialists essentially say: "Why work for the things one doesn't have; just TAKE them from the people that do have them - and get the STATE to help!"
The FACT that everywhere and everytime a centrally planned economy and redistribution has been tried it has created MORE poverty never seems to even get into the equation for so many people, (the Leftists and their acolytes). WHY!? Their avarice and greed and covetousness - and sloth - is so great. YEAH SLOTH: it's easier to steal something from others than to earn it oneself.
Some "leaders" like Chavez and Kim Jong Il MIGHT know that what they advocate is bad/harmful/vestigial, but advocate it anyhow for their personal gain. Other Leftist demagogues might actually believe it themselves; (as I imagine the French Leftists do. But then, they "believe in Jacques Derrida!).
BOTTOM-LINE: IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER THE DEMAGOGUES ARE DUPES OR JUST "DUPERS". The results are ALWAYS THE SAME: more poverty, less liberty. WHY IS THIS SO?! Because prosperity is the by-product of liberty. And because socialism reduces liberty - and personal incentives for personal growth, it always reduces prosperity. FOR EVERYONE.
Some interesting analysis here, by PUBLIUS PUNDIT. (And TJ notes pro-Chavez puffery from the MSM here.)
Not to be overlooked: the fact that Chavez is actually aiding the jihadoterrorists (who are - NOT COINCIDENTALLY - ALL SOCIALISTS!). (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.)
One of the things that is so WEIRD about this - to me - is the "time-warp" aspect: Marxism has been absolutely thoroughly discredited (in the former USSR, in China, in India, in Korea, etc.), yet it still has populist appeal. WHY!? Because socialism exploits the covetousness so common in each and everyone of us; socialists essentially say: "Why work for the things one doesn't have; just TAKE them from the people that do have them - and get the STATE to help!"
The FACT that everywhere and everytime a centrally planned economy and redistribution has been tried it has created MORE poverty never seems to even get into the equation for so many people, (the Leftists and their acolytes). WHY!? Their avarice and greed and covetousness - and sloth - is so great. YEAH SLOTH: it's easier to steal something from others than to earn it oneself.
Some "leaders" like Chavez and Kim Jong Il MIGHT know that what they advocate is bad/harmful/vestigial, but advocate it anyhow for their personal gain. Other Leftist demagogues might actually believe it themselves; (as I imagine the French Leftists do. But then, they "believe in Jacques Derrida!).
BOTTOM-LINE: IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER THE DEMAGOGUES ARE DUPES OR JUST "DUPERS". The results are ALWAYS THE SAME: more poverty, less liberty. WHY IS THIS SO?! Because prosperity is the by-product of liberty. And because socialism reduces liberty - and personal incentives for personal growth, it always reduces prosperity. FOR EVERYONE.
The current BACKSLIDE INTO SOCIALISM - in Italy, Spain, Latin America -- and soon perhaps France - MIGHT EVEN OCCUR IN THE USA! YUP: the American electorate might vote the Left back in power this Novermebr - and 2008. They will vote as if price controls, high-taxes, windfall profits taxes, nationalizing industries - and the like - EVER brought anything good. Sheesh.
A sucker is born every minute.
[WEIRD ASIDE: Can someone explain to me why the CONSERVATIVE is leading in the presidential polls in Mexico?! And I DON'T buy the "Chavez Backlash" theory. My theory is that the Mexicans in the USA - those WORKING illegally - are convincing their relatives of the benefits of the USA's non-socialist FREE ENTERPRISE system. The "BIG CONVINCER"?! ALL THE MONEY THEY SEND HOME!]
[BTW: One of the MAJOR reasons Chavez and Ahmadinejad are ALLIES is that they both USE Marxist rhetoric when describing the West and the USA - essentially, jihadoterrorists and Leftists employ the same CORE MEMES: (1) that Third World poverty is the result of First World colonialization; (2) that the State should be the final arbiter in the economic marketplace and the marketplace of ideas; (3) and that "individual liberty" is a lie/fantasy of the West; etc.]
[BTW: One of the MAJOR reasons Chavez and Ahmadinejad are ALLIES is that they both USE Marxist rhetoric when describing the West and the USA - essentially, jihadoterrorists and Leftists employ the same CORE MEMES: (1) that Third World poverty is the result of First World colonialization; (2) that the State should be the final arbiter in the economic marketplace and the marketplace of ideas; (3) and that "individual liberty" is a lie/fantasy of the West; etc.]
[ADDENDUM: The resurgence of the Left is simply a REACTIONARY PHASE: we are in the midst of great changes in the world, principally driven by: the IT revolution; globalization; jihado-hegemonism; and the collapse of Marxist regimes, (and of the bi-polar world - which everyone over the age of 40 GREW UP IN. This is roughly half the world's population, and all of its decison-makers!).
These "change-makers are" ALL UNSETTLING to people, and when people get unsettled they get uncomfortable and insecure, and they crave ORDER and PREDICTABILITY.
Leftism - the ideologies which advocate the aggressive use of the State to predetermine outcomes, roles, distribution, etc - offers "benign" predictability. This is SEDUCTIVE in times of great change, and turmoil. Leftist ideologies appeal to peole who want.crave/need predictable outcomes; it makes them feel secure; they think outcomes based on rules alone are just/fair.
THE FACT THAT LEFTISM HAS NEVER DELIVERED "BENIGN PREDICTABILITY" IS RATIONALIZED AWAY BY BY LEFTISTS; THEY SAY, "Well, the USSR (for example) wasn't 'true' socialism. If we finally tried "TRUE scialism, it would work just fine."
These "change-makers are" ALL UNSETTLING to people, and when people get unsettled they get uncomfortable and insecure, and they crave ORDER and PREDICTABILITY.
Leftism - the ideologies which advocate the aggressive use of the State to predetermine outcomes, roles, distribution, etc - offers "benign" predictability. This is SEDUCTIVE in times of great change, and turmoil. Leftist ideologies appeal to peole who want.crave/need predictable outcomes; it makes them feel secure; they think outcomes based on rules alone are just/fair.
THE FACT THAT LEFTISM HAS NEVER DELIVERED "BENIGN PREDICTABILITY" IS RATIONALIZED AWAY BY BY LEFTISTS; THEY SAY, "Well, the USSR (for example) wasn't 'true' socialism. If we finally tried "TRUE scialism, it would work just fine."
Bah Humbug!
I ask Leftists to consider this: Economies are divided into two components: "GOODS" and "SERVICES." Why do you suppose the THINGS which people buy are called "GOODS"?! It's because the things which people CHOOSE FREELY to buy - WITH THEIR OWN HARD-EARNED MONEY - are things THEY consider good. Consumption of GOODS is GOOD; it's people exercising THEIR LIBERTY.
Poor people don't have the means to CONSUME ENOUGH GOODS. The problem of Third World poverty is NOT that the First World consumes too much; it's that the Third World consumes TOO LITTLE! And produces too little, too. The solution is NOT to have the First World consume LESS - as Leftists argue (as when they accuse the USA of "over-consuming". In fact, if the USA consumed LESS it would drive the ENTIRE WORLD into a RECESSION - raising unemployment WORLDWIDE, and INCREASING POVERTY!).
To increase the ability of poor people in the Third World to consume, we need to INDUSTRIALIZE the Third World, and liberate it from Leftism. After all. Leftism is the road to sefdom.
The Left is fond of believing that industrialization has been a great harm to mankind and the Earth. BUT THE FACT IS INDUSTRIALIZATION HAS BEEN A GREAT BOON TO MANKIND, AND NO HARM TO THE EARTH.
The overall human population, and life-spans, AND the average standard of living for all humans has actually increased ever since INDUSTRIALIZATION, and because of it. The best places to live on Earth are the INDUSTRIAL NATIONS.
And as for the INSANE, irrational, "change-phobic" Leftist/"green" charge that the "environment" is getting worse: BAH HUMBUG! If industialization was "bad for your health" then why do the populations in the INDUSTRIAL world have healthier, longer lives than those in the un-industrialized world?!?! THE ARGUMENT THAT INDUSTRIALIZATION IS BAD FOR OYUR HEALTH IS HOGWASH. It's good for workers, for consumers, and for people's health.
And as far as the "green" argument against industrialization: IT TOO IS HOGWASH! The history of industrialization is NOT one of depleting one resource despoiling the area of its origin and then moving on to the next resource; it is rather a history of DISCOVERING new uses for previously "useless" things, and offering them to FREE people to consume, if they so wish.
In 1840 oil was useless; in 1940 it was dear; it might become useless again, and probably will LONG BEFORE we run out. Silicon and titanium were uselsss in 1940; they are dear, now. In 100 years they might become useless, again. The FREE MARKET will decide. And since the FREE MARKET is nothing more than FREE PEOPLE FREELY making a choice about what to do with THEIR hard-earned money, it is both economically sound and morally sound.
Those who argue that the State should make these decisions, instead of free persons, are economically and morally WRONG. History proves this - I shouldn't have to!
I pray that we don't succumb to "change-phobia" and the Reactionary Left. But: Ya neva know. Fear of change - "change-phobia" - is a powerful motivator. It is fueling the Left, AND their Jihadoterrorist comrades.]
[EPILOGUE: Is this the CLINICAL problem? IS THIS THE ANSWER?]
I ask Leftists to consider this: Economies are divided into two components: "GOODS" and "SERVICES." Why do you suppose the THINGS which people buy are called "GOODS"?! It's because the things which people CHOOSE FREELY to buy - WITH THEIR OWN HARD-EARNED MONEY - are things THEY consider good. Consumption of GOODS is GOOD; it's people exercising THEIR LIBERTY.
Poor people don't have the means to CONSUME ENOUGH GOODS. The problem of Third World poverty is NOT that the First World consumes too much; it's that the Third World consumes TOO LITTLE! And produces too little, too. The solution is NOT to have the First World consume LESS - as Leftists argue (as when they accuse the USA of "over-consuming". In fact, if the USA consumed LESS it would drive the ENTIRE WORLD into a RECESSION - raising unemployment WORLDWIDE, and INCREASING POVERTY!).
To increase the ability of poor people in the Third World to consume, we need to INDUSTRIALIZE the Third World, and liberate it from Leftism. After all. Leftism is the road to sefdom.
The Left is fond of believing that industrialization has been a great harm to mankind and the Earth. BUT THE FACT IS INDUSTRIALIZATION HAS BEEN A GREAT BOON TO MANKIND, AND NO HARM TO THE EARTH.
The overall human population, and life-spans, AND the average standard of living for all humans has actually increased ever since INDUSTRIALIZATION, and because of it. The best places to live on Earth are the INDUSTRIAL NATIONS.
And as for the INSANE, irrational, "change-phobic" Leftist/"green" charge that the "environment" is getting worse: BAH HUMBUG! If industialization was "bad for your health" then why do the populations in the INDUSTRIAL world have healthier, longer lives than those in the un-industrialized world?!?! THE ARGUMENT THAT INDUSTRIALIZATION IS BAD FOR OYUR HEALTH IS HOGWASH. It's good for workers, for consumers, and for people's health.
And as far as the "green" argument against industrialization: IT TOO IS HOGWASH! The history of industrialization is NOT one of depleting one resource despoiling the area of its origin and then moving on to the next resource; it is rather a history of DISCOVERING new uses for previously "useless" things, and offering them to FREE people to consume, if they so wish.
In 1840 oil was useless; in 1940 it was dear; it might become useless again, and probably will LONG BEFORE we run out. Silicon and titanium were uselsss in 1940; they are dear, now. In 100 years they might become useless, again. The FREE MARKET will decide. And since the FREE MARKET is nothing more than FREE PEOPLE FREELY making a choice about what to do with THEIR hard-earned money, it is both economically sound and morally sound.
Those who argue that the State should make these decisions, instead of free persons, are economically and morally WRONG. History proves this - I shouldn't have to!
I pray that we don't succumb to "change-phobia" and the Reactionary Left. But: Ya neva know. Fear of change - "change-phobia" - is a powerful motivator. It is fueling the Left, AND their Jihadoterrorist comrades.]
[EPILOGUE: Is this the CLINICAL problem? IS THIS THE ANSWER?]
2 comments:
Great post, reliapundit. I wish I could say it so well. Should be required reading...
thanks, barry.
tell your friends.
Post a Comment