Socialism is lauded in United States universities as the answer to economic inequality that will create a workers paradise. Bernie Sanders is also promising to tax the millionaires and the billionaires to make them share their wealth and pay much higher taxes so that poverty will be eliminated. No one can point to an example where socialism has improved an economy or actually worked. Examples where it has failed are abundant and tragic. The usual result of a socialist takeover is the destruction of business, a contraction in the economy, the impoverishment of the majority of the people, and the rise and enrichment of a ruling elite. And yet our university professors cannot seem to see and understand the damage that socialism inevitably brings.
Perhaps if they would look south to Venezuela, they would see a clear example of what typically goes wrong when a political leader takes a country to socialism. Venezuela is awash in oil, and in fact was the first member of OPEC. The country actually has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. That is one factor that led to their downfall. Hugo Chavez, long time president of Venezuela and protege of the Cubans, used oil to pander to the poor with free breakfast, and to line the pockets of he and his cronies. It buffered the damage done when he threw out foreign investors and expropriated their property and factories. It paid for imports when the actual productivity of the country diminished. It paved the way to create a country now completely destitute with the fall in oil prices. But you can be certain that the new socialist president, Nicolas Maduro and his cronies are still living well, even as the rest of the country starves. It is the way with socialism, everyone equal, everyone in poverty except for the chosen few at the top. The academics should get out of the classroom and look at Venezuela, at what they are preaching does to a country like Venezuela.
See some of the shocking effects of socialism in Venezuela, page 2:
Bernie, save them!!!
KARL MARKS (Class Differentiation} VS LENNIN.
Lenin’s view of politics The root of the split was a book titled What is to be Done, that Lenin wrote while serving a sentence of exile. In Germany, the book was published in 1902; in Russia, strict censorship outlawed its publication and distribution. One of the main points of Lenin’s writing was that a revolution can only be achieved by the strong leadership of one person (or of a very select few people) over the masses. Lenin’s view of a socialist intelligentsia showed that he was not a complete supporter of Marxist theory, which also created some party unrest. For example, Lenin agreed with the Marxist idea of eliminating social classes, but in his utopian society there would still be visible distinctions between those in politics and the common worker. (1) KARL MARKX CLASS THEORY ON party members who considered unequal treatment of workers immoral, and were loyal to the idea of a completely classless society, so Lenin’s variations caused the party internal dissonance.
On Feb. 8, 1920 a young British writer made a similar observation in the Illustrated Sunday Herald:
“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews.”
The writer was Winston Churchill. :
KEY WORD ATHEISTIC JEWS STARTED THIS WITH KARL MARKS AND PERPETRATED WITH LENIN.
Yes o did. You can find more on other sources.
This is what happens when a country is prospering and people want free stuff and they vote in socialism, a system in which everyone but the leaders lose.
Socialism ends the same every time!
Sooner or later you run out of someone else’s money!
This is where America was heading until president trump
Socialism at its best
Ya’ll stay away from up here!!
BERNIE
Ohhhh that good ole socialism creates equality! Equally hungry, equally miserable, equally quiet.