Dictatorship is always a tragedy. But history suggests that a tyrant who allows markets does far less damage than one who abolishes them.
You’ve no doubt heard the horrifying stories of dictators who abused their people for personal gain or sheer cruelty. Stalin’s Great Purge, Mao’s engineered famine, and Pinochet’s brutal torture of dissidents are just a few notorious examples. If all dictatorships are hell, a difficult question remains: which offers the better odds of survival, or even prosperity? Is it a dictatorship that tolerates some free-market capitalism, or one built on socialism?
A disclaimer is in order: This is not a defense of tyranny. We should resist it, whatever the form — absolute monarchies, military juntas, or proletarian dictatorships. Whether it’s the few controlling the many or the many terrorizing the few, all policies repressing freedom, silencing dissent, or justifying violence against innocents are inconsistent with our natural rights. They are morally evil and unjustifiable.
“The more the state ‘plans’ the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.”
— Friedrich A. Hayek
Socialism has appeared in many forms — Revolutionary (USSR), nationalist (Germany), agrarian (Cambodia), on and on. Wherever it does not collapse quickly due to its economic defects, it inevitably destroys all political freedoms. Two types of tyrannical regimes emerge: one type allows private property and business initiative, the other squelches them.
[...]
...read more at thedailyeconomy.org
Authoritarian Capitalism27.3%
Democratic Socialism72.7%
11 votes
Bingo
Authoritarian cap is pretty fine; demo socialism is straight-out hell.
The socialists need to be forcibly removed.
Every corporation is a socialist, without exception. Capitalism cannot exist when everything is regulated under rulers will.
"Authoritarian" is the new "racist." It's just a leftist slur to discredit politicians who would put shoplifters in jail, as opposed to emptying the prisons.
We can't afford to give these people the benefit of the doubt. They are dangerous revolutionaries. The right is trying to reform the system to be more capitalist with minimal collateral damage and normie consent. The left has an insatiable bloodlust.
The capitalists have good jobs and businesses that they want to maintain and families that they don't want to put at risk. The communists have nothing to live for but revolution. The capitalists want open debate to make the communists look bad. The communists will say anything to get into office and would rather wave a degree in your face as though that gives them authority to tell you what to believe. The right doesn't have the stomach to carry out vigilante violence. The left does, has, and will.
This is rapidly deteriorating into a struggle of good vs evil. When they say "authoritarian" what they mean is that they lost control of the military and they're mad that they can no longer use it to hurt you, so they resort to generalizing all patriotism and all prohibitions on vigilante violence as fascism. It's not fascism. It's capitalism with American characteristics and it's keeping the lights on.
And for them to use anti-semitism and libertarian-coded language immediately after losing the popular vote is absolutely vile. It's blatant MEME THEFT and it's practically an open admission that their only hope of survival is to demoralize the right. Do not be demoralized. We're winnning. We have to keep winning.
https://m.stacker.news/152805
USA has run out of Interceptors and cannot make any more because Xi has sanctioned exports of refined rare earths to US military supply chains.
The petrodollar empire operated by Zionist bankers and war criminals is dying because Chinas hybrid state capitalism-free market economy is more productive and efficient and now dominates global trade in manufactured goods and commodities.
https://m.stacker.news/152806