Why the Leftism Fails

From the smallest hippie commune, to the largest communist nation, the final result of leftism is inevitable - failure.  Most of the counterculture communes started in the "60's, did not survive into the '70's, and many people born before the formation of the Soviet Union, lived to see it's demise.  Venezuela is falling apart before our eyes.  The semi-socialist, western European nations are in the process of destroying themselves.  Cuba is Cuba, and while its communist government has not yet officially failed, it will certainly always be remembered for it's lack of success.  China has made great strides over the last few decades, but only because it finally accepted the fact that capitalism was a necessary ingredient for a modern, industrialized nation.

Can any of this be credibly disputed, even by the most hardcore liberal?  The answer is no, and the best argument anyone could come up with would be a reference to some obscure nation or organization, which wouldn't even come close to neutralizing what was said in the above paragraph.

Even more laughable is the other leftist response:  They will concede that everything said in the first paragraph is true but then add:

"Communism can work in theory, it has just never been implemented correctly." 

Let us assume for the moment, that the above statement is correct.  What does that mean?  It means that communism is not "user friendly".  It's a funny coincidence that I am writing this piece on a computer and with a program that are both, very user friendly and the very proof of that, is the fact that I am doing it.  I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't easy. 

All of what I am doing right now, was possible in the not too distant past, on more primitive machines, with software that was more difficult to use.  Where are those machines now?  Where is that software now?  They're in the basements, attics, and closets of people who can't bear to throw things away, or have gone to landfills or recycling centers by people who can.

There are two important points to consider from all of this.  First, things that are not relatively user friendly are always selected out by technological evolution.  It's why the cavemen upgraded from throwing rocks to using spears.  Second, virtually all progress and innovation, from the spear to internet, was driven by not by governments and central planning, but by individuals who came up with better ideas.

That is why leftism fails.  Since leftism does not seek to protect the freedom and rights of the individual, it is not user friendly.  Difficult decisions must be made concerning limiting the rights of the individual for the good of the collective.  Compare that to Libertarianism, which amounts to "Just letting people do what they want".  Which is easier to implement?  

The same is true with economic systems.  A free market is simply easier to implement (more user friendly) than a centrally planned economy, and it's the reason that the shelves on our grocery stores are always full and are currently empty in Venezuela.  No one has to come up with any new legislation in the United States when there is a shortage of a particular product.  The price simply raises until demand drops off.  In Venezuela, they did not allow prices of goods to rise to the level it cost to supply them, and they simply disappeared.  Now, their government must make difficult decisions that are hardly ever necessary in a country where a free market economy exists.

Working examples of pure Communism and pure Libertarianism are both hard to find, but all of this should give anyone with any amount of common sense, which way a successful nation should be leaning.

Are there inherent problems with free markets and capitalism?  Absolutely, but it should be abundantly clear to everyone by now, that there are inherent problems with every thing and every idea that ever existed on this planet.  We should stop looking for Utopia, concentrate on what works best, and accept that the fact that sometimes, inherent problems are not as bad as the do-gooders prescribed "solutions" to them.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of libertariansim is that it frees the government of blame.  After all, how can a government be guilty of something it did not have a hand in?

Read the article below that I found at IOTW Report, and note that none of the things that impressed Boris Yeltsin were due to any of the things that liberals are fighting for today.  None of them.  How can I say that?  Because if those things had been in place back then, liberals would not need to be fighting for them today, would they?

souree: The Reaganite Republican 

The Day Frozen Pudding-Pops Destroyed
Boris Yeltsin's Faith in Communism


After a September 1989 tour of Houston's Johnson Space Center, 
Boris Yeltsin -freshly elected to the new Soviet Politburo- made an impromptu visit to a typical American grocery store -'Randalls'- in Clear Lake, Texas,
to have himself a look around...
 
And more than anything he'd seen at the advanced NASA facility, what really blew Yeltsin away was the sheer variety of goods at the supermarket. The fact that such stores where to be found in just about any town in America was said to be beyond comprehension for the Soviet politician- the pictures tell a thousand words- 

Think about it.  The leftists are fighting for everything Yeltsin and the Soviet Union already had.  

Maybe the U.S.S.R. just hadn't implemented communism correctly, but maybe, just maybe, a fifteen dollar per hour minimum wage, nationalized health care, and all the other things on the lefty agenda, aren't such good ideas.  As Utopian as they may appear on paper, they simply just stifle the freedom and innovation of individuals and are they anything but, user friendly. 


  

No comments:

Post a Comment