redbloodedamerica: i-am-dallas: siryouarebeingmocked:redbloodedamerica:makeamerikkkablackagain:
redbloodedamerica: i-am-dallas: siryouarebeingmocked: redbloodedamerica: makeamerikkkablackagain: redbloodedamerica: hellyesbro said: socialism has literally failed nobody Where do these kids learn this stuff? Stalin ate all the grain and paid the clouds not to rain. Mao’s weather control went too far. He killed 3738833838383883838383939339939393936252522525522636374748484744$363837:6373737373 peasants. Castro turned South America into a literal concentration camp. Chavez invented poverty. I haven’t missed anything have I? Oh, I see. All these socialist regimes just all coincidentally had a bout of bad luck as soon as they each came into power. But of course. So, it’s not that socialism is to blame but rather just a series of unfortunate repetitive cases of bad fortune. One day they’ll get it right though. If that’s the case, then minarchy, anarchy, and all truly libertarian societies are also dismal failures despite whatever their unique circumstances were. After all, none of them lasted and all fell to chaos, disorder, famine, and/or annihilation. That wouldn’t be fair, would it? Surely there were things we could learn and take from each one to build a better one, right? My point is that you can’t logically dismiss socialism, or any economic structure, based on a few examples of where there may or may not have been extenuating circumstances. It’s a fallacy otherwise. Each example has to be attacked and defended based on its own merits. Just having an ideological aversion to something is not reason enough to dismiss it entirely. You people aren’t as smart as you think you are. @i-am-dallas, take your self-aggrandizing contrarian musing elsewhere. No one is interested in your thoughts on anything because a) you don’t know what you’re talking about to begin with and b) you just make up stuff to argue with people about. Why? I’m not sure. Perhaps you get off on it or something. I don’t really care. -- source link