Hey, Democrats, I've lived in a socialist country with income 'equality' and it was miserable

...as Democrats justify grandiose proposals by decrying income inequality, many of us who immigrated to the United States from socialist countries see great irony. After all, unending income equality is what drove us to leave our native lands in the first place.

My family left post-Mao Communist China in the mid-1980s precisely because there was so much equality to go around. As a child, I lived in Guangzhou, the third largest city in China. Everyone in my city was equal in having no running hot water, no modern toilet facilities, no refrigerator, no washer, no dryer, and no color television.

There was abundant equality in the dearth of economic opportunities as well. The state told us where to live, where to work, what to buy, and for how much. Worse yet, my fellow citizens who lived in the countryside were even more impoverished.

After decades of totalitarian rule and grand socialist experiments, China had a meager per capita GDP of less than $200 in 1980. By comparison, America’s was $12,500 that year.

One of the key problems with Socialism/Communism is that it creates huge bottlenecks...because all important decisions have to be made by a very few individuals at the top of the socialist pyramid, and they do not have the time, energy or ability to be able to deal with the immense complexity of the factors and issues that go into the efficident production of a society's needs. So, overarching drachonian generalized plans and proclamations have to be made - and then shoved down everyone's throats (ahem...Green New Deal anybody?).

The second huge issue is that Socialist Governments...as things begin to fail and fall apart...have to lay the blame on people who are supposedly twarting their perfect little plans - and they, of course, have to put a stop to that "treasonous" activity. So, free speech must be strictly curtailed. Groups and individuals who are speaking up about the problems must be suppressed (outlawed, jailed, executed, etc.)...and the socialist structure itself starts to consume itself, to keep the very "tippy tops", as AOC would say, of the leadership in power.

In the Soviet Union, for example, when crops did not come in at the unrealistic levels mandated...it must be the farmers who were conspiring to sabotage the harvest - arrest them! If factories were not producing (with or without raw materials or other goods), it must be the engineers and line bosses - into the Gulag with them! If you actually fought for the Revolution, but you were not a member of the socialist faction that eventually grabbed the reins of power, you might become part of a subversive effort to get your faction to the top - everybody in your group, and their families, must be eliminated! You get the picture...

China, under Mao (and successors), Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cambodia...etc. It all ends up the same way. Even in more rational socialist-democratic countries (like in Scandanavia), the welfare state eventually starts to grind down, as more and more people are on the dole and have no incentive to be productive members of society. As tax rates continue to rise in a vain attempt to pay for all of the freebie social programs (for citizens and illegal residents alike) productive members of society move away...especially the rich, who can afford to go anywhere they like.

Over the past 40 years, China became the second largest economy in the world.

However, don’t for a minute forget the lesson that still applies: When the state runs the economy and its citizens’ lives, there will be plenty of equality in scarcity, poverty and hopelessness.

Today, this is a lesson that prominent Democrats seem eager to forget. Less than 30 years after the former Soviet Union collapsed and the United States emerged victorious from the Cold War, Americans increasingly find it necessary to debate the shortcomings and evils of socialism all over again.

Americans...Republicans, Independents and true traditional Liberal Democrats (not the radicals that are taking over the Party) would be extremely wise to heed the warnings - and to recognize that the most important election in a democratic country's history is the one that elects a government on the basis of establishing a socialist agenda.

That's because, in order to implement their program, it just might be the very last election that is ever held.

Radical Dem Danger Straight Ahead

Hey, Democrats, I've lived in a socialist country with income 'equality' and it was miserable

They couldn't care less. It's their entire platform.

The worse off you are the better for them. So vote for 'change'.

If you think that the "democratic socialism" in the USA is the same as the maoistic semi-communistic socialism like in China in the 60s-80s, you are very, very, very dense.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
If you think that the "democratic socialism" in the USA is the same as the maoistic semi-communistic socialism like in China in the 60s-80s, you are very, very, very dense.

If you think that the "democratic socialism" in the USA won't become the same as the maoistic semi-communistic socialism like in China in the 60s-80s, you are very, very, very dense.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Right back at you! You obviously have no idea what living under the excesses of laissez faire capitalism is like. You have no idea what you are talking about by your own argument.

Corruption of people in power has nothing to do with the type of government. Both left wing and right wing governments have corruption.

"Power corrupts..."

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Democratic socialism is like Stacy A's Democratic justice.

Nothing remotely democratic about either.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
If you think that the "democratic socialism" in the USA is the same as the maoistic semi-communistic socialism like in China in the 60s-80s, you are very, very, very dense.

If you think that the "democratic socialism" in the USA won't become the same as the maoistic semi-communistic socialism like in China in the 60s-80s, you are very, very, very dense.

If you think your own preferred right wing government is immune to problems of corruption then you are denser:



Marx's criticisms of laissez faire capitalist systems of government are still valid. Government corruption by people in power is not something that only occurs in left-wing type governments.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Explain to me how nationalising EVERYTHING ( means of production) isn't corrupt.

Because it is.

SEVERELY.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
If you think that the "democratic socialism" in the USA is the same as the maoistic semi-communistic socialism like in China in the 60s-80s, you are very, very, very dense.

If you think that the "democratic socialism" in the USA won't become the same as the maoistic semi-communistic socialism like in China in the 60s-80s, you are very, very, very dense.

Chinese worker making the Iphone would agree, and at Foxconn.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm going to be blunt.

Right now, we have a corrupt government.


Making government socialist will create a corrupt socialist government.


But that is obviously what you and many want.

SMDH

originally posted by: ColeYounger

Then will come the days of wishing for capitalism when they had it so good compared to being exploited by people like Cortez.

The queen bee and all us little worker drones.

Socialism should be outlawed as a pyramid scheme. Those at the top get all the benefits while those at bottom fight over the diminishing crumbs.

Jealousies and trophy-ism run wild here in USA.

Hardly any "go out and work for it-ism" anymore.

Capitalism is what moves innovation forward because the resultant competition forces companies to provide newer and better products and services.

This is why service is so bad with government. Since there is no competition, there are no consequences for being inefficient or poorly run. You see the same with industries dominated largely by one or two players.

The funny thing to me is that people pushing socialism because of inequality never mention the inequality under socialism. Unless you are part of the "elite" you will be enjoying the shared misery. At least with capitalism, everyone has a fighting chance to better their lot in life. Does everyone succeed? No, but you most certainly can go from not having a pot to piss in to millionaire/billionaire by your own hard work and luck. You aren't trapped in the lower class by birth or name either.

What people fail to realize when they cite all this "inequality" in America is that the groups are not stagnant. The vast majority of people in the lower incomes do not stay lower income just as the vast majority who make it to the 1% don't stay in the one percent. Income numbers only reflect the distribution of income in any given year, not who is actually making up that income.

originally posted by: Phoenix
Socialism should be outlawed as a pyramid scheme. Those at the top get all the benefits while those at bottom fight over the diminishing crumbs.

Jealousies and trophy-ism run wild here in USA.

Hardly any "go out and work for it-ism" anymore.

I was reading an article recently about the children of Maduro living large and flashing cash and luxury living on instagram while the country starves. Politicians pushing for socialism are only pushing on the sheeple, not themselves.

a reply to: mobiusmale

I think all these forms of forced equality are not working at all.

A wise man somewhere around here has a signature that says something like this: Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

I don't know about you but I want to be free.

And, when people talk about equality, what they really mean is "just the good parts though". A woman does not want TRUE equality with men. Oh, your body is telling you that you are horny, so bad that it hurts? Well good luck with that being equal to men. You'll find it's not as easy as just spreading your legs when you're a man. Oh what's that? Your tire went flat, your car overheated, or some other problem, I mean who knows what could go wrong? It's a car. It has like 10,000 seperate parts that could malfunction, break, fall off, get stolen... And you're stuck on the side of the road on a much too hot or too cold of a day? Its gonna take a lot longer than 5 or 10 minutes before someone comes along who is the type of person to stop and offer help to a man who is by himself on the side of the highway... so hopefully you learned a thing or two about cars and hopefully you have the right tools on you to fix whatever is wrong.

Non-white guys do not want TRUE equality with white guys. They, like women, only want the positive aspects of being white. They want nothing to do with the guilt we carry, the fingers pointed at us, the assumed racism... They dont want to give up the positive stereotypes applied to their race. Blacks dont want to give up the stereotypes of sexual and athletic prowess, they don't want to shed their reputation as being "tough".

Nobody wants to literally trade places with a white man. Maybe if you got to choose a specific white man. But just to be a random white guy? Nobody wants that. Nobody wants to be the guy everybody hates.

Another thing about equality... I'm not really sure what people envision... But, society works better as a ladder you can start at the bottom and climb. If you take everyone and instantly equalize them as far as belongings, personal wealth, and income...

People seem to think that means we will all live like rich folks. Not billionaire rich, but everyone will at least be a millionaire or close to it. Ok, so everyone's basically a millionaire. Everyone is equal. Everyone has an automated $25k added to their account every month. It is freaking awesome! A true utopia! Finally mankind learned to truly share the wealth!

Cool! Whatcha wanna do? I know the first thing I'm gonna do, is go and buy a sweet ride! Let's hop in the hoo-ride and go down to one of the car lots...

What's this? Theres no car salesman? He quit his job? Something about becoming basically a millionaire overnight? But wait a minute, IM a millionaire. That means I need a maid, a cook, a bodyguard... In What world is a millionaire gonna be someone's maid or mechanic or fast food worker?

So now we know why the communists had to assign jobs to everyone. So, you don't get a bodyguard or a maid. Nobody does.

But of course, if your assigned job just happens to be as a head of state or some other government duty like an ambassador or something, then obviously you cant be expected to do your own laundry, clean your own house, run all your own errands...you have more important work to do.

So, SOME people will get maids and bodyguards and chauffeurs... So kinda like today except there's no opportunity to advance. You're assigned your position and that's it.

In what way is this going to be "better" than what we have now?

a reply to: mobiusmale


When people actually wake-up and realize that none of the "ism's" work, then we'll be much better off.


Till then.................argue on.

dp

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
If you think that the "democratic socialism" in the USA is the same as the maoistic semi-communistic socialism like in China in the 60s-80s, you are very, very, very dense.

So... Forcing equality IS a good thing and it DOES work?

Or is it a retarded idea by retards with zero life experience?