Which is exactly what we see here for the last 100 years. Incrementalism.....

Now, they have broken us so far down, they dare to come for the weapons best suited for "Homeland Security"... And many say they will still vote for them... sad

Socialism is attractive because it sounds right to a lot of people.  To disregard everyone who advocates socialist ideas as lazy morons is the equivalent of disregarding all firearms owners as stupid rednecks.  Many hardworking, intelligent (although seriously misguided) people are attracted to socialism (and all it's little bastard children) because it espouses what sounds like lofty goals.  It also enables the adherents of socialism to attack any opposing view with impunity and in sound bite form (guns kill people, so ban guns.  Makes sense right?  Takes ten seconds to say that and sounds convincing.  It takes much longer to effectively explain why that statement is wrong).

Socialism is so insidious because it simultaneously promises utopia while it leads you off to a forced labor camp.  Two of the major Jewish resistance groups in the Warsaw Ghetto were socialist and communist.  These people were actively being slaughtered by a socialist regime, yet they were still overwhelmingly supporting socialist ideologies.  That is the nature of socialism, and people will cling to the idea that socialism can work, the people in charge just screwed it up.  The next gang will somehow do it better.  Because of the huge disparity between what socialism says, and how it actually manifests itself in reality, the policymakers tend to get the blame, while the ideology is generally left out of the equation.  

Rand identified the notion of altruism as the core reason for, and subsequent addiction to the "cult of the state".  The idea of self-sacrifice as a noble gesture permeates modern philosophy, and is generally accepted by most people as a "correct" idea.  It is however that very notion that allows socialism (and all it's little bastard children) to flourish, even with the remarkable record of failure attributable to it.

Socialism has done for itself what evil has always striven to do.  It makes itself appear to be the right, the moral, the ideal.  Conversely, it also tries to make that which is truly right, moral and ideal seem wrong.  And like a virus, it's adapting and changing, as evidenced by the rise of the "socialist democracy" here in the US.  Even people on this board tout the greatness of "democracy" here in America without even realizing that America never was intended, and never should be a "democracy".  Democracy is rule of the masses, by it's very definition, and is a basic tenet of socialist ideals.  Many of us embrace that word (maybe unknowingly) as indicative of freedom, but it only serves to illustrate how far the tentacles of socialist philosophy have been integrated into our vernacular.

There is no attraction to socialism, it's ingrained.  Even people that claim to be opponents of socialism (like Republicans) unknowingly integrate socialist philosophies in their daily lives.  Unfortunately most people never come to realize what those philosophies are, or how they came to abide by them.  Our "subconcious junkheap of unwarranted conclusions" as Rand put it.  We are in dire need of a "philosophical revolution" if socialism is ever to go bye bye.

Marxism/communism/socialism was the rage with the intellectuals of europe during the late 1800s. These intellectuals rubbed elbows and sometimes were from rich capitalisctic families.

So between the social idealists and the capitalists, they figured they could better control the people by telling them one thing and then doing another.

Marxism/communism/socialism, was brought to our shores in the early 1900s through the intellectuals teaching in our universities.

And they had basically 2 kind of students and future American leaders to implement their ideals. Students coming from a working class or poverty type backrounds (Klinton), and the children of the rich (Bush).

And since then, everything that happens in our nation politically or in the corporate world
is based on telling us one thing, and doing another.

waterdog

Deniers of the world unite!

I think the U.S. is wanting to spread [b]capitalism[/b] first, democracy being the form of government that supports it best.

European socialism may be reaching it's limits.  France is downgrading pensions and expectations.  One thing is for sure we will get a front row seat on where we are headed if we watch Europe, Old Europe that is.

"[b]Why not just post "I know you are, but what am I?"[/b]

Just as you did? It's obvious that you already know all you want to know so I won't bother you with the particulars.
"Have a nice day!"
[img]http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/mittelgrosse/medium-smiley-124.gif[/img]

JarHead_22 said:
[b]EDIT: This has really gone wrong and far afield. Perhaps I took your original post wrong. If so, I apologize. I didn't actually take you for a Com/Soc/Marx apologist. I was just thrown off and responded off the cuff.[/b]

No problem. My point is that even if you oppose something it is best to learn the true nature of it.  Someone said, "Know your enemy." Well, you shouldn't base something that important on assumptions. Get some books on the subject: read, learn. Take a Pol Sci class:ask questions, learn.

Jarhead, I originally thought you were posting your question in an earnest pursuit of discussion.  Your original posts made two points:

1.  [b]Why[/b] do people believe in a socialist system that is so obviously flawed.

2.  How do the socialists/commies/etc. overlook the slaughter that has followed the institutions of most socialist and communist administrations in the 20th century.

Good questions.  You're telling me that I am not arguing facts.  On point 1, I made a post giving psychological reasons that underlie the acceptance of the communist dream.  Specifically, I said the promise of free health care and free from responsibility of providing for youself and the promise of being insulated from the lumps life throws your way is too seductive for many to resist.

You also got plenty of responses of people disparaging socialist thinkers and making ad hominem attacks, "They never had a real job."  "They're lazy and worthless, so they're socialist" and so on.  We can sit here and smugly insult the socialists, or say we have bigger dicks than them or whatever and we can sit back and put them down, or we can try to understand where they are coming from.  I thought your original post was aiming for the latter reaction.

On point 2.  I'm not trying to obfuscate the question of how socialists and commies can overlook the mass killings that resulted from many of their governments.  But I am making the point that I think socialist governments can be achieved without such mass killings.  In other words, mass killings are not necesarrily intrinsic to a socialist system.  To illustrate this point, I brought up Chile, where the country was on the way to a peaceful implementation of socialism, but instead a capitalist power intervened, commited their own mass killings and implemented a capitalist system.  Which is, according to your original question, is something that is only in the playbook of socialists and communists.  So I think that your contention that mass killings are inevitable under a socialist system is false.

That said, I am probably more pro-capitalist and lazzais faire than the majority of those on this board and I think socialism and communism are anathema.  But you asked for perspectives on how it can make sense to people when such economic models are so obviously flawed.  So I tried to explain it.

I don't mean to imply that you would support Pinochet or his tactics just because both you and he are capitalists, and I apologize if my message came across that way.  I brought up Pinochet to point out that socialists are not the only ones to resort to mass kilings to install their model of government and economics.

-Nick Viejo.

It occured to me not too long ago that around the time when Socialism/Communism were first proposed, many parts of the world did have the problems that Socialism/Communism was supposed to solve, like most of the people were opressed for the profit of the richest people. Thus the proposed radical changes in Socialism looked more attractive then pure Capitalism, which seemed to give only more of the same. But now, we have learned that implementing Socialism only produces more of the same oppression, only with different people in charge and a different reason for them being in charge being taught in the schools. We have also learned that letting the engine of Capitalism crank for another 50-100 years or so would produce a standard of living for the "lower classes" that Socialists could only dream of.

Go straight to the source.  Lenin said that the Left divided into three groups, namely party members, fellow travellers and useful idiots.

At the lowest level, there are the useful idiots.  These are the people in our society that don't do very well economically.  They believe that the Hated Rich became Rich through fraud, theft and lies.  They want what the Rich have, and they know they will never get it short of redistribution.  Their primary motivations are greed (for the possessions of the Rich) and hatred (for the status of the Rich) and shame (for their own failures).  These useful idiots are very easy for the other Leftists to manipulate.

Next come the fellow travellers.  These people are the ones attracted to Leftist theory.  They become Leftists because is sounds "more fair" to them than capitalism.  They will spend their days with their noses stuck in some dry, theoretical book and seldom if ever notice the crimes that are being committed in the name of their Movement.  If they eventually encounter reality, they will bailout and denounce their former Leftists for their crimes, while at the same time saying that the theory was sound, but the Revolution was betrayed.

Finally, the smallest and most dangerous group is the Party members (as in Communist Party).  These folks will say or do ANYTHING to get and hold power.  They are certain that the Party is right, and if you oppose the Party IN ANY WAY then you are wrong.  Period.  These are the ones that will man the firing squads and take the food away from the peasants.  Because they believe in a theory.  And the theory allows them to have and hold power over their fellow man.  These a the sort of people that, when confronted with evidence of crimes committed in the name of the Left, will say something like "you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs".

Remember, Party membership in America is at a very low point right now.  That doesn't mean that there are only a few Communists around.  It means the Communists are currently hiding as fellow travellers and useful idiots.