Socialism

I just noticed when it was I last visited Blogger.  Great Googly Moogly, it's been a few weeks!  Sure, I went off to Puerto Rico for a week, but that was at the beginning of November.  Since my return, I haven't done much of anything to interact with you, my faithful readers.  The two of you. This absence is completely unacceptable, even though a basketball team has more people than I have followers.  No excuse.  Still, I would have preferred writing something with no redeeming social value instead of this (of course, some of you may think the following has no redeeming social value, either). 

Socialism according to Merriam-Webster, which has been around since the Adams Administration (The John  Quincy Adams administration.  He was a sucky president who was succeeded by Andrew Jackson, a wild racist.  I'm thinking sucky was preferable):

 

                1.  Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Wrong Collective

Closer, but...yikes.

                2.  A system of society or group living in which there is no private property.

                 There's more, but I think you get the gist of it.

                 The fear that the United States is inexorably slipping into socialism is widespread, especially among Conservatives (of which I am one).  There are those Democrats (not all), little more than Leftists, who are thrilled at the prospect.  They see nothing wrong with the redistribution of wealth to ensure a more equitable society.  What's more, the federal government needs to be the stick which forces fundamental change in a brave new world.

                What may surprise some of you out there, I think Socialism is an outstanding idea.

                In theory.

                After all, all for one and one for all is a wonderful concept.  Like a [non] dysfunctional family, we really would tend to our fellow man under the noble idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

"Hey, that's kinda catchy.  Mind if I use it?"
NOTE:  for those who went to New Jersey public schools, this is Karl Marx,
lesser known Marx brother and Father of Communism

                Theoretically, who could argue with that?

                The only problem with Socialism (despite the empty-headed ninnies claiming real Socialism has never been tried) is that it, by necessity, must involve human beings.  And, sadly, a substantial number of these humans are worthless slack-asses.  They certainly do have needs (well, according to them), but their only abilities are suckling at the teat of Big Brother.  They're content to watch "poor saps" schlep off to work while they lay around on their spotty behinds and applaud Whoopi and Joy squealing from the trough.

"Did he just call us pigs?"
"Speak for yourself, Mophead."

                To them, it's patently ridiculous to put on pants and head off to some job (a three-letter four-letter word).  The checks will keep coming, thank you very much.  Earning a living is for suckers.  I've got Call of Duty to play, yo.

                The only problem with that is...eventually, the working stiffs will look at Mickey Man-Bun and wonder why they should go to work anymore.  If he can get paid for laying about, well why not me?

                Eventually, everyone's in the cart and nobody is pulling.

                If you doubt any of this, how many folks were all too willing to receive government largesse for remaining at home?  Yes, yes, I know.  COVID.  Still, there's a whole lotta "Hiring" signs out there, don'tcha know.  What's more, how many hoboes do you see on the median, their hands out?  I dunno, seems like a good way to make a buck to me.  If you know, don't want to submit an application.

                I'm genuinely sorry to all you believers in mankind out there.  I sincerely wish everyone had an equal desire to help their fellow man or woman.  That they would look upon a stranger with the same beneficence as a beloved child.  But, it ain't so.

                It's basic human nature for some to be schmucks.  Unfortunately, this has been the way of the world since the dawn of history and will continue to be so until an asteroid takes us out.  Unless someone dusts off their recipe for Soylent Green.

"IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!"

                 Yes, utopia should be the ideal toward which we strive.  I would never argue that it shouldn't be.  It's just that I know it will never be so.

                Capitalism is far from a perfect system.  However, it is the best one we have.  Competition for goods and services drive the engine of our society.  Sure, there's corruption.  Sure, there's going to be people who take advantage of others.

                The same could be said for those wedded to the idea of an America with no personal property and a government controlling every bit of our lives.

                If empty-headed boobs like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get their way, does anyone honestly think she will empty her savings account to help the downtrodden?  Will Chuck Schumer open his house to an illegal immigrant family?  Will Bernie Sanders donate one of his homes to the homeless?

                Of course not.  And neither should they. 

                It's just that I don't want to subsidize someone on their couch while the "beautiful people" still get to live in their luxury dachas and jet off to France for global warming conferences.  I'd like to enjoy the fruits of my labor, if it's not too much to ask.

                In short....
                Liberals envision a world where all are brothers and sisters working to their mutual betterment.  I honestly wish they were right.

                Conservatives see the world for what it has been, what is now, and what it always will be.

                You may call me, and others like me, cynical.  However, I much prefer the term "realistic."

 

Next time:  A little nonsense.  How 'bout it?