Tag: socialism

Categories
general freedom ideological culture international affairs national politics & policies

Becoming France

France, Democrat, Democratic Party, democracy, socialism, Islam, anarchy

“I come from your future.”

This isn’t science fiction. It’s a warning. From today’s France.

Don’t let the U.S. become tomorrow what France is now. 

The words are from Brivael Le Pogam, co-founder and “tech emperor” of a French a.i. company. He addresses Americans who “are about to vote Democrat,” directing his words thus because the Democratic Party is the ever more openly socialist of this country’s two major parties. 

But Republicans need to heed him too.

As great as France may have been and is, don’t emulate the way it’s hurtling toward a cliff.

“In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise,” says Le Pogam. “Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. . . .

“France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. . . . Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. . . .

“And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them. . . . The result is stagnation.”

Nobody voted for the accumulating costs of all the “free” goodies and assaults on free enterprise. They voted for the fairy tale.

“Before you vote, ask yourself . . . is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?”

Listen to the time traveler. 

I mean, the Frenchman.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture international affairs

This Stage of Democratic Socialism

DSA, socialism, CCP, China

A nearly 1200-word article at The Epoch Times exploring linkages between the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and what DSA members call “Chinese socialism” reminds me of two concepts:

  1. “Useful idiot”; and
  2. What happens to socialism after communism fails.

The article is more exploratory than incendiary. Only a few DSA activists have taken part in the party’s China Working Group, visited China, or signed a public statement in support of the “continued survival of Chinese socialism.”

These “democratic socialists” qualify as “useful idiots” because they do not seem to realize that “Chinese socialism” — called “socialism with Chinese characteristics” by the Chinese themselves — is not democratic. The government is run by the Communist Party, a single entity, no competition allowed.

Why would people who insist on calling themselves “democratic” support this?

Because, as with all democratic socialists, at some point one is required to choose between the two ways of doing government. If you call yourself “socialist,” you’ve committed yourself, and you will have to choose tyranny at some point, or give up the socialist idea.

Democratic socialists in America are certainly useful to the Chinazis. And they are idiots. Thus the old term for moon-eyed westerners supporting Asian anti-democratic regimes carries on, still applicable after all these years.

But remember that China is not run as a centrally planned economy. It’s run like a fascist state, with party members working within businesses, only occasionally taking full control and ousting (even executing) owners and entrepreneurs and “uncooperative” managers . . . when the State requires. Just as did the National Socialist Party during Germany’s “Third Reich” period. As Peter Drucker sagely noticed, “Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.”

Democratic socialists may think they are not fascists, but fascism is indeed what they are pushing in America . . . and applauding when seen in China. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with NanoBanana/Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture tax policy

Kill the Class Warfare

wealth, taxes, socialism, capitalism, envy, resentment, Mises, egalitarianism

In his 1922 book Socialism, Ludwig von Mises explained why socialist policies are, in reality, forms of “destructionism.” They create nothing, just erode and destroy the economic bases of civilization.

The motive animating the socialists’ rationalizations — exploded in systematic detail by Mises — is resentment and envy.

Which are also behind a new tax on billionaires slated to appear on California’s November 3 ballot as Proposition 40.

Billionaires haven’t done anything wrong merely by earning great wealth. Typically, they’ve done something right. They’ve been industrious and entrepreneurial and helped people improve their lives. Typically, they earn their billions; which, incidentally, they don’t stuff under a giant mattress but invest further.

This doesn’t stop the tax’s demagogic proponents, like Ro Khanna, from claiming that the interests of the “donor class” are inherently opposed to those of the “working class.”

Khanna wants government to privilege one “class” over the other. But as Dmitri Bolt points out, neither should get a government-enforced advantage. “The real choice is between freedom and its absence: between an economy in which people are free to work and keep the fruits of their labor, and one in which politicians get to decide how much success is too much and which class deserves to pay for everyone else.”

Investors create opportunities for everybody, of whatever “class.” And when the walls seem to be closing in economically, it’s often because politicians like Khanna have “chosen to restrict one group’s freedom while pretending [to expand] opportunity for the other.”

Californians have a great opportunity to choose freedom over internecine class warfare in November.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture partisanship

Socialist Idiocracy

Democratic Party,Zohran Mamdani, socialism, DSA, Congress, capitalism

Old School Democrats are losing it.

Losing the young and, therefore, control of the direction of their party . . . to the Democratic Socialist of America.

Do they understand the dangers?

While it is expected that Republicans — such as Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) — would object to the rise of socialist agitation in the Democratic Party, getting Democratic leaders to object to the new radicalism has not proved quite so easy.

But James Carville, the strategist behind Bill Clinton’s victorious presidential runs three decades ago, is speaking out.

“What I would tell a Democratic socialist — ‘If you hate the Democratic brand so much, why use our words? Go call yourself something else. Call yourself the Socialists of America,” he said. “Don’t use our name. Make up your own name.”

The Fox News report elaborated, “Carville argued that the DSA’s values and policy positions, including defunding the police, do not align with those of the Democratic Party.”

Now, Carville’s not really in any position to demand that the ersatz “Democratic Socialists” strike the “Democratic” from their name. The Democratic Party — the party of Jackson and Van Buren as well as of Wilson and FDR — does not have a monopoly on the term. It is not Democratic® or Democratic™. And what with how Democrats in the Democratic Party are now scarcely committed to democratic processes at all — remember the stealing of Bernie Sanders’ nominations, or selecting a new presidential candidate without one vote of party regulars? — maybe the term should be up for grabs.

But not by socialists. 

Why? Carville called the hyper-successful and self-designated socialist “streamer” Hasan Piker an “idiot,” and his listeners “left-wing idiots.”

Yet they cannot call themselves “Idiot Socialists of America,” can they?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Shirkers of the World, Unite

socialism, freedom, control, democracy

“Now it is our turn,” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders told the crowd gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, last Friday, celebrating the 63rd anniversary of Martin Luther King’s March on Washington speech. 

Socialist Sanders was followed by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

“We the people demand guaranteed healthcare for every American as a right and not a privilege,” insisted AOC.

“We the people of the United States of America demand that one job with no need for overtime,” she declared, “should be enough for our most basic needs.”

Then Ocasio-Cortez added, “Which also include rest.”

“Exactly,” remarked Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, “We became number one in the world by resting and not working overtime.

“Right behind her is an army of socialist foot soldiers,” Kilmeade continued, “ready to work 30 hours and then take a break.”

That army is the Democratic Socialists of America — to which AOC had just re-upped her membership.

“Imagine taking a day off from work,” reads their program’s very first message, “in a future without capitalism.” You see, in that socialist utopia just around the corner, “You enjoy your work; it’s interesting to you” and “you would control your own labor” and it would never be “just a job to pay the bills.” 

The promise of socialism fulfilled at last.

“Speaking of bills,” the DSA assures you won’t “really have them anymore.” And there will be “no debt”! Why, you won’t even “pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right.” Simple as that, plus, “Your retirement is publicly funded.” 

Sure sounds like they’re going to take care of us real nice. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana and Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture too much government

The Greed of Socialism

socialism, national debt

Do the young think that their trendy-again socialist notions are new?

There’s no hat older than socialism. Our civilization has been grappling with socialist ideas for at least two centuries. While the arguments for and against socialism are many and varied, maybe it all boils down to ignorance and greed.

“This century’s socialist wave starts at a big disadvantage,” wrote Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., for the Wall Street Journal, yesterday. “It arrives as the socialism we already have runs out of that famous quantity, other people’s money.”

Today’s allegedly “democratic” socialists use “the socialism we already have” as an excuse for more. Truth is, we cannot afford what we now must put up with.

“An American baby born today owes $376,000 in federal debt and unfunded entitlement liabilities, assuming the burden is evenly distributed,” explains Mr. Jenkins. “Of course, it isn’t. We oldsters plan on checking out before the bill comes due.”

The intergenerational conflict of actually-existing socialism has been buried under nice phrases like “Social Security” — even as that specific program teeters, insolvent, requiring re-jiggering to ratchet up burdens on the young every other generation. 

I see why the young would object. It’s harder to see why they would want more of the dog that bites them.

“Let me be the 1,000th to notice that the New York socialism of Mayor Zohran Mamdani seems to appeal especially to privileged young people, still supported in adulthood by their parents.” 

And let me be the millionth to observe that demanding other people do your work and pay your bills amounts to exactly what these very nice socialists have always railed against.

Greed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture tax policy

Uh & Other Naughty Words

Francesca Hong, Wisconsin, socialism

The love of other people’s money is the root of so much political evil. 

Francesca Hong, the Democratic front-runner in today’s gubernatorial primary in Wisconsin, embraces that evil. She’s even willing to add curse-words to declare her dedication to soaking the rich: “Tax. The. Fucking. Billionaires.” Or so she says on Facebook.

So edgy.

But Hong blanks out when it comes to the negative fallout of taxing the rich at higher rates. Says lame things; doesn’t use the f-word. She uses the u-word: “uh.” When challenged in last week’s debate, about what she’d do “if all the millionaires leave the state,” she responded with “You know, uh, discussing that hypothetical is, um, a little bit, uh — I’m confused about that.”

“Like most socialists, she is in denial about the costs and consequences of her proposals,” argues The Washington Post editorial board. 

“To fund ‘free’ child care, state-run grocery stores and more health care subsidies” she pushes an additional 1 percent in taxes on the top income bracket. “This might sound fine to a taxpayer who doesn’t make a million dollars, but Wisconsin — like every other state — relies on wealthy taxpayers to support state infrastructure, public schools and social programs,” WaPo explains. “The top 5 percent of earners pay about 40 percent of the state’s net income taxes.”

For years, journalists have enabled demagogues to lie about how much the highest income earners actually pay in taxes, fooling many voters into thinking that the goose that lays golden eggs can be plucked and plundered without consequences. A turnaround on the issue at WaPo is refreshing.

“Recent elections seem to suggest,” its editors conclude, “that Democratic voters no longer fear labels such as ‘socialist’ and are more interested in tearing down the party’s establishment. A better strategy to combat extreme policies is to explain the damage they will cause.”

Too late? I hope not. For Wisconsin and for other states.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture national politics & policies political economy

Trump-Approved Profits

Donald Trump, oil, prices, inflation, redistribution, socialism

Occasionally, President Trump takes an anti-capitalist rhetorical turn. He apparently supposes his unleashing of an Inner Mamdani will help him through a political rough patch. 

Or perhaps he is just momentarily confused.

The president recently asserted that oil companies are making too much money right now and “ought to give back” some of it to the public. This, although “I’m a big free enterprise guy.”

But oil companies don’t owe buyers anything more than the oil they supply. Nor, when prices are low, do buyers owe oil companies or gas stations more money than what they pay.

In markets, a sudden big drop in supply of a good — like oil, shipments of which might be blocked by wars in the Middle East — tends to lead to higher prices.

Companies unable to ship or sell the good lose money. If demand remains the same or increases, prices for the part of the supply still available go up. Which means more profits and more money to expand production and distribution.

Consumers of oil should want its producers to be as successful as possible. That’s just reason, common sense. High profits encourage and fund more digging, refining, and distribution, and attract more competition — ultimately increasing supply to reduce prices. 

Whenever supply of an urgently needed good takes a hit, producers should be as free as possible to deal with the problem and to enjoy the rewards of dealing with it successfully. Any big free enterprise guy should be able to understand this. 

You too, Mr. President.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
property rights tax policy

Two Horrors Don’t Make It Right

Zohran Mamdani, socialism, communism, New York City

The mayor of New York City, commie Mamdani, is trying to raise more money to pay for his socialism.

One scheme is to punish owners of a second home by imposing a so-called “pied-à-terre tax,” a tax on the second residence of wealthy New Yorkers above and beyond regular property taxes.

Now, the assumption that anybody with a second home, or an expensive second home in an expensive property market, must be rolling in liquid funds is faulty. The notion that if you have more wealth than somebody else it should be taken from you? Also faulty.

The new tax bill is going to many New Yorkers with only one home. And the website set up (speaking loosely) to permit challenges of the designation of one’s home as a pied-à-terre is proving nightmarish to navigate.

One recipient of an extra-tax bill, for $43,000, is Karen Young, who has lived in her brownstone with her husband for thirty years. Two minutes of research would have prevented the mistake, she observes. “Is this a witch hunt?”

New assaults on our rights often have two parts. One part is really horrific. The other part is even more horrific in some other way. The greedy government may eventually withdraw or correct the even more horrific form of the assault; at which point everybody is relieved . . . except anyone noticing that the first form, also horrific, and serving as precedent, is still ongoing.

Was that the game plan here?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies partisanship too much government

Socialists to Seize Power?

socialism, Democratic Party, prison, authoritarianism, totalitarianism

Evan Barker isn’t surprised. 

“The democratic socialist surge of the past several weeks has stunned the nation,” this former Democratic operative wrote last week. “From left to right and everywhere in between, people are asking: How did we get here? What does it mean? And will the Democratic Party survive it? The prevailing reaction has been shock.”

She’s not shocked, though, because for half a decade she had worked for “a slew of progressive candidates” teaching “DSA-aligned staffers how to build a money machine for the left; coached progressive politicians on how to speak to donors; and collaborated with billionaires to create a robust fundraising network.” 

But after the big loss for Kamala “Salad Slinger” Harris and Tim “Cringe” Walz, Barker left the party. And wrote a book, Nothing Left, regaling us with how she became disillusioned with “a leadership class” that had drifted “further and further from the working-class Americans they purportedly represented.”

Barker’s not alone. Others in the rah-rah crowd for an older Democratic Party have also expressed their chagrin. On the First of July, well-known “liberal” journalist Jonathan Chait published in The Atlantic “There’s Nothing Democratic About These Socialists.”

Noting that the Democratic Socialists of America despise the Democratic Party, with many of DSA’s stalwarts veering off into communist advocacy without much nudging, the question becomes why Democrats with some sense don’t come to their alleged senses.

Chait observes that Michael Harrington, the socialist founder of DSA, placed into its bylaws “the expulsion of members who were ‘under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization,’ a slightly jargonish way of describing communists.”

Yet, the Democratic Party isn’t as moderate as Harrington!

Truth is, “DSA supporters see internal division not as a risk but as a historic opportunity to seize power.”

And the “means of production.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts