Rubbish

That is NOT socialism but something over which Ayn Rand has superimposed her own Russian preference. It goes well beyond the basic premise of socialism and feeds into what is now the current conservative interpretation to meet a specific political agenda.

She was an ignorant cunt. I mean that in the nicest way.

@OCJoe Thanks for not using an ad hominem attack.

Actually, the socialist principles mentioned in the article from counterpunch.org provides evidence of Ayn Rand's statement above. The article states, "...the social and economic rights of the people, including employment, health care, education, housing, transportation,.." Who will pay for those so called "rights?" And, what if the ones forced to pay for them don't want to pay for them? As Ayn Rand stated about man under socialism, "his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society..."

@powder your point seems to be that we already have socialism here, just not the right kind. This seems to be a common theme with socialist proselytizers: neither Mao nor Stalin nor Pol Pot instituted socialism. The good ol’ USA has adopted it, and the proof is the bailout of Wall Street in 2009. I imagine that if you can conjure up such an idea you would go on to argue that New Deal was also a socialist program. Socialism’s track record, however, is proof that it only empowers a corrupt few and propels everyone else to a mislerable existence under their yoke. No one is allowed to dissent on the basis that since the powerful leadership works for the benefit of the people, dissent “isn’t good “ for the people. The purge and the GULAG and the killing field and the pro-government paramilitary rapid repose brigades and the hanging judges and firing squads come along soon. Bernie falsely claimed that Denmark is socialist, proving that even some of the leaders of the socialist movement have no idea what they’re talking about. And you imply that fraud, a blight of capitalism, would not exist in socialism. Really?

Where has it ever taken root? And what guarantee is there that it won’t be uprooted? The charter of this nation, its constitution, created an enduring form of government. It was based on the most afavaced political theory of the day, and it has withstood the test of time. The refugees of Maduro’s policies and of the Cuban economic disaster are a strong refutation of the viability of socialism as a freedom-promoting, productive, popular, or desirable form of government.

@powder The Counterpunch piece contradicts your claim that Australia is or was socialist in areas: the writer of the piece wastes no time to explain that the goal of socialists is to grab power and then to keep it. Once they have the power, common sense and history prove to us that they hold on to it, and their claimed goals are used to label their opponents as traitors, enemies of the people, kulaks, bourgeois, etc., and to justify wiping them out. Neither Denmark nor Australia is socialist in the sense proposed by the Counterpunch piece, or in any other intellectually persuasive way. The proof is that if they were socialists wouldn’t have to work to persuade anyone to make those countries into socialist countries.

@powder Any goal is acceptable as long at it doesn’t result in the destruction of others. Can you imagine the fate of a group like the Amish community in the socialist USSR or in Venezuela or in Cuba? They would destroyed because one of the immediate effects of socialist empowerment is that conformity is enforced. Individual rights cease to exist and in their place “collective rights” take over.
This is nothing more than a trick to force everyone to accept a set of values and a number of prescribed practices designed to buttress those in power against any potential challenges.

In a capitalist society, people are free to do what they want precisely because the government is less powerful. In a capitalist society, the government is not the end all and be all. You want to build a socialist commune? You can do it in any garden variety capitalist country.

@powder I appreciate the distinction that you’re trying to make, but it seems forced and out of place in light of the Counterpunch story that led to this exchange. The writer of the Counterpunch story speaks glowingly of Castro’s Cuba and of Chavez’ Venezuela. While both Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are dead, their successors run Cuba and Venezuela. And the degree of destruction, mismanagement, incompetence, and out of control hubris that they’ve brought to the task is something to behold. People in these two countries have been voting with their feet, leaving behind everything they hold dear for one shot at freedom even if it’s in a place where no one knows them or they don’t even know the language. That’s what true socialism does when it takes over.

Powder 3 / Arturo 0.....Powder is our winner. YEA!!