PDA

View Full Version : Why DEMOCRATS hate prosperity



Русский агент
12-20-2017, 10:12 PM
https://i2.wp.com/thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Benjamin-Franklin-On-The-Poor.jpg



“Burzhui” was a dreaded word in the first decades following the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

A brutal word derived from the French “bourgeois”, it was a label affixed to any resident of the former Russian empire who had managed to achieve any level of financial success while not being a part of either the hereditary nobility or the cadres of the Communist Party.

Being labeled a burzhui meant that you and your relatives and even descendants would be subject to immediate repression, including loss of all income opportunities, confiscation of all possessions, possible imprisonment and exile, and even execution. There were no 'get out of jail free cards'.

Famous physician? Doesn’t matter, you will never practice again.

World-class composer? Better run for your life like Rachmaninoff.

Engineer? Not any longer, except maybe in a labor camp.

But this is insanity, you say. How can any government make its highest priority the repression of successful and skilled people? Surely that would be tantamount to national suicide?

As subsequent events have shown, these actions were indeed tantamount to Russia committing suicide.

We will return to this later, but first it is important to understand the rationale behind these actions as advanced by the Russian communists.

As most folks know, communism implies government ownership and control of all means of production, while socialism implies government ownership over the major means of production, leaving some room for private ownership of small inconsequential business.

Communists hate prosperity. They hate it because it is inevitably unequally distributed between the lazy and the enterprising.

What may surprise some, though, is that government or state control of the means of production is by no means a modern-day idea. In fact, this is the way most civilized human societies have always operated.

In feudal Europe, Japan, and China, the “state” was your village or small town, which “belonged” to the local feudal lord. Means of production all belonged to the feudal ruler, as did the vast majority of the cultivated and uncultivated lands.

Society thus consisted of the feudal family representing a narrow ruling class, a small number of artisans and professionals who served at the pleasure of the feudal family, and the vast majority of the people, who owned next to nothing.

This social structure encouraged laziness and actively discouraged hard work and innovation in technology and business alike. While some peasants were enterprising and found ways of improving their condition, most worked as little as necessary.

As technology advanced and means of production diversified beyond agriculture and associated industries, a new class of people started appearing in places as far apart as Europe and Japan.

These were skilled free people who could rely on their education or trade to provide valuable services or make high value-added products. These were lawyers, doctors, shoemakers, gunsmiths, architects, engineers, and sea captains to name but a few.

They tended to live in places that had populations of potential customers, such as the larger provincial seats and capital cities. The French called them city folk, or, in French, bourgeois. Eventually, they amassed significant wealth and became politically influential. Their class, the class between the peasantry and the nobility, was thus called the bourgeoisie.

In Karl Marx’s lifetime, the nobility was nearly impoverished and mostly irrelevant, the peasantry forgotten in their country hamlets, and large cities saw the emergence of the bourgeois as the new property-owning class, with displaced peasants toiling in the factories. Marx perceived in the bourgeoisie not a collection of enterprising, hardworking, and innovative individuals, but rather leeches that did not deserve the ownership of the means of production.

The DEMOCRAT Party has recently completed its transformation to communist ideology: social justice trumps prosperity. From this it follows that prosperity is bad.

The so-called “deep state” is a Soviet-style nomenklatura, complete with late-stage hereditary and nepotistic characteristics. A large and growing class of government employees resembles more and more the hordes of Soviet workers, not really exerting themselves to do anything extraordinary.



https://tsarizm.com/opinion/2017/12/20/hi-tech-traditionalist-democrats-hate-prosperity/

midcan5
12-24-2017, 07:13 AM
Another wacko conservative whose God blesses America while the republicans refuse to support CHIP but support the wealthy who need nothing. What nitwits the right has created, conscience lacking fools who act like life is always easy or simple. Evangelicals and Christians are now the most unlike Christians in this world of hope and promise. 'God Bless' is just another sad, unthoughtful follower of policies that help no one in real need. “‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Matthew 25

"Of all the descriptions of Mr. Trump we’ve heard this election season, this may be the most farcical. As described by St. Paul, the “fruit of the Spirit” includes forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, hardly qualities one associates with Mr. Trump. It shows you the lengths Mr. Trump’s supporters will go to in order to rationalize their enthusiastic support of him."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/opinion/campaign-stops/the-theology-of-donald-trump.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/opinion/sunday/wehner-evangelical-republicans.html


If you believe there is a hell make sure you are good this year for it will be filled with republicans and gawd they are awful people.

Русский агент
12-24-2017, 07:39 AM
Nothing is stopping you from personally and voluntarily supporting charities with your own money, Liberace.