Fidel Castro: socialism doesn't work
I personally am pure right wing and have no acceptance of Socialism ,Communism or anything left wing and Support the democracys and Capitalist systems of the west including true Republicism
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Those rich people don’t need all that money. They don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And a lot of good can be done if all that money is taken away from those people, who don’t need it anyway, and is given to other less fortunate people so that they can have better opportunities to advance their lives.
The socialist methods deployed to supposedly achieve a better world unleash an AVALANCHE of negative side effects that utterly dwarfs any of their original intentions, and brings more poverty, more inequality, more injustice, less prosperity, and more misery. This is because those methods go against an essence of human nature that cannot be changed even by people with the best of intentions.
Social programs are a disincentive to work and act responsibly. After all, if some or all of your needs are taken care of, and if someone else picks up the tab whenever something goes wrong, why would you worry about such minor details as work ethic, productivity, financial responsibility and family obligations? Consequently, when productivity takes a downturn, leading to a shrinking economy, guess who suffers… everybody! Oh and as always, the rich suffer the least
above fact and undermine everything socialism is meant to accomplish:
Much of the money that goes to the government ends up being wasted, resulting in ineffective government programs, and less wealth for EVERYBODY.
Many are tempted to assume that money collected by the government goes to help the poor and downtrodden. However, much of that money ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, those who have the most resources and ability to lobby for it.
Socialism concentrates money and power in the hands of the government. When government grows, the greedy and corrupt don’t go away. Conversely, they now have a more powerful tool in their hands, the government itself.
The richer you are, the easier it is for you to avoid increasing taxation and leave the bill to the middle class.
A soak-the-rich, high tax strategy inhibits the economy. And who is hurt the most by a slow economy? Not the rich!
The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love.
High taxes and government regulations make it more difficult to start and grow a business, thereby leaving much greater opportunities for those who are already rich and have the resources to overcome those difficulties.
Socialism causes poverty because it slows economic growth and progress through government waste, taxation on productive economic activity, discouraging innovation and the creation of hurdles for business. In addition, socialism causes poverty because it creates a disincentive to work and act responsibly. Socialism causes inequality because much of the money that goes to the government ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, it’s easier for wealthy individuals to avoid taxes, and it creates hurdles for business that the wealthy find easier to overcome. Socialism is a way for the rich to shut the door behind them, preventing those who are on their way up from reaching their destination.
a lot of socialist final goal to it get rid of a the government so it would just be the people that ran the country. and if you had real socialist in the government then it hopefully wouldn’t become corrupt, even though there will always be corrupt people when there are greedy people. but if you have righteous people then i dont see how u could say socialism doesn’t work, go read the communist manifesto and tell me there aren’t good ideas in there to benefit the working class, and to that guy talking about Russia needs to look beyond a history book and see that Russia was not really a socialist country and read about cuba and how socialism is working there.
a lot of socialist final goal to it get rid of a the government so it would just be the people that ran the country. and if you had real socialist in the government then it hopefully wouldn’t become corrupt, even though there will always be corrupt people when there are greedy people. but if you have righteous people then i dont see how u could say socialism doesn’t work, go read the communist manifesto and tell me there aren’t good ideas in there to benefit the working class, and to that guy talking about Russia needs to look beyond a history book and see that Russia was not really a socialist country and read about cuba and how socialism is working there.There used to be times when Fidel Castro would be considered the most left-wing famous person of the Western Hemisphere. Times are changing. The U.S. progressives - of the Daily Kos type - are now vastly more extreme communists than the former Cuban leader.
Following the example of his brother Raul, Fidel gave a sensible answer to the question whether it was a good idea to export the Cuban model to other countries. "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he said. Fidel has also criticized Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his anti-Semitism and especially holocaust denial. However, the same criticism could be addressed to the U.S. and some European
This was the collapse of the modern intellectuals' most cherished tradition. It was World War II that destroyed collectivism as a political ideal. Oh, yes, people still mouth its slogans, by routine, by social conformity and by default -- but it is not a moral crusade any longer. It is an ugly, horrifying reality -- and part of the modern intellectuals' guilt is the knowledge that they have created it. They have seen for themselves the bloody slaughterhouse which they had once greeted as a noble experiment -- Soviet Russia. They have seen Nazi Germany -- and they know that "Nazi" means "National Socialism." Perhaps the worst blow to them, the greatest disillusionment, was Socialist England: here was their literal dream, a bloodless socialism, where force was not used for murder, only for expropriation, where lives were not taken, only the products, the meaning and the future of lives, here was a country that had not been murdered, but had voted itself into suicide. Most of the modern intellectuals, even the more evasive ones, have now understood what socialism -- or any form of political and economic collectivism -- actually means.
To many Islamic nations, freedom is not a tonic, but a toxin; it's regarded not just as something that permits a challenge to faith, but is a challenge to faith by itself.
"To Westerners, the value of concepts like truth, life and liberty remains constant, writ in stone, whether our best efforts successfully earn that value or not. But many Westerners like myself watch events unfold in the Islamic world with the inching realization that the value it places on those concepts remains utterly fluid, seemingly shaped by convenience and circumstance.
"Even reason itself appears subject to sacrifice; some of the most cognitively dissonant images to come out of the controversy are protest signs with messages like, 'Behead those who say Islam is violent'." -- Andrew Steven Harris
Twenty years ago the conservatives were uncertain, evasive, morally disarmed before the aggressive moral self-righteousness of the liberals. Today, both are uncertain, evasive, morally disarmed before the aggressiveness of the communists. It is not a moral aggressiveness any longer, it is the plain aggressiveness of a thug -- but what disarms the modern intellectuals is the secret realization that a thug is the inevitable, ultimate and only product of their cherished morality
t, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.
But even this doesn’t fully describe what he is