April 18, 2012

"Capitalism pays for socialism."

Says Alderman Mark Clear at the Madison City Council meeting last night, which denied Occupy Madison an extension of its permit to maintain an encampment on a city block which is slated for development. Full context at the end of this post.

ADDED: This seems like a good place to repeat that old Margaret Thatcher adage: "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

49 comments:

edutcher said...

Yeah, and then we get things like the GSA Vegas convention.

Spare us the socialism and give us our own money back.

Scott M said...

"Capitalism pays for socialism."

Anyone even fleetingly familiar with the West's defense of Europe since WWII understands this concept. I suppose you could also go with "Lucky Geography Pays For American Affluence Which In Turn Pays For Socialism" but that doesn't look good on a bumper sticker.

Tim said...

"Capitalism pays for socialism."

Duh.

Pogo said...

I'm glad it was said, but it is only temporarily true.

Nothing can pay for socialism; its desires and demands are endless and contradictory.

Socialism is the parasite, capitalism is the host.
Sometimes the host dies.

Quayle said...

Capitalism pays for socialism, and socialism pays for a lot of capitalism-competitive salaries for the heads of socialist non-profits and advocacy groups.

Nice work when you can get it. All the goodness of helping the poor, and all the income of a P&L CEO.

Rusty said...

I thought this was interesting.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/17/wi-dems-running-on-platform-of-property-tax-hikes/


I winder why the resident grievance mongers haven't brought this up?

Pogo said...

Capitalism pays for everything.

Socialism is the lazy brother-in-law on the couch who moves in, never works, and bitches about the food and the cable channels.

AprilApple said...

Yet socialists, progressives and communists do what they can, every day, to vilify and tear down Capitalism.

Tim said...

"Socialism is the parasite, capitalism is the host.
Sometimes the host dies."


Yes, but "Sometimes the host dies"?

Isn't it too early to suggest that it isn't "Always the host dies"?

Seeing Red said...

Socialism kills, free markets feed.

Quayle said...

"Make me unequaled, and I'll make you all equal."

Maguro said...

Another teapartyish sentiment. What's gotten into the water in Madison?

Bob Ellison said...

I heard something vaguely like this once in a college philosophy course. It went something like this:

Consider capitalism and socialism as life forms-- organisms-- joined in a complex symbiosis called government.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, of course. Thus capitalism is a positive vector sustaining socialism. Similarly, socialism is a self-destructive force (Latin: stultus organizationem) that tends to recapitulate capitalism. It's a vicious circle.

Furthermore, truth is absolute, and exists before knowledge. Because truths such as the above cannot be destroyed, they cannot be created. Therefore, all political science is proven true, and simultaneously this is useless claptrap.

Pogo said...

Capitalism causes the fat middle of middle age.

Socialism is very slimming.

SteveR said...

Well yeah

Hoosier Daddy said...

Isn't believing in socialism pretty much like believing in Santa Claus?

PogoПОССУМ said...

Death to all kapitalist running dog!

Long live socialist democracy, guarantee genuine people power and social justice!

Plus as state official, have nice дача​ dacha in Gagra!

Tim said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

"Isn't believing in socialism pretty much like believing in Santa Claus?

Children have the excuse of believing their parents; adults, not so much.

Rialby said...

And eventually you run out of other people's children.

Scott M said...

And eventually you run out of other people's children.

ZIIIIIING

Rialby said...

"The way we will be able to help the people we want to help in our community is by having the resources to be able to do it. And the only way we can do that... is by growing our real estate base."

At what point does "helping the people" by taxing the "real estate base" pass the point of no return? At some point, businesses will stop feeding the beast because it's too expensive.

Ken said...

Scott M,

you could also go with "Lucky Geography Pays For American Affluence Which In Turn Pays For Socialism"

What a crock of shit. Most places around the world have excellent geocgraphy and far more raw materials to be converted to natural resources than the US. Luck has very little to do with the American culture that maintains the entrepreneurial culture that pays for everyone else's screw ups.

Fen said...

Isn't believing in socialism pretty much like believing in Santa Claus?

More like a religion:

"We are the priests of power. God is power. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal." - Orwell, 1984

Scott M said...

What a crock of shit.

The crock of shit is your assumption. Lucky in geography refers to the fact that we escaped the ravages of war on our soil and were able to parlay that into prosperity of which the world has never seen before. There's simply no disputing the fact that we have two extremely large bodies of water off our eastern-most and western-most states.

Fen said...

1812

Maguro said...

The crock of shit is your assumption. Lucky in geography refers to the fact that we escaped the ravages of war on our soil and were able to parlay that into prosperity of which the world has never seen before. There's simply no disputing the fact that we have two extremely large bodies of water off our eastern-most and western-most states.

I think you're missing the point. Capitalism pays for socialism everywhere, not just in places with favorable geography.

cubanbob said...

Scott M said...
What a crock of shit.

The crock of shit is your assumption. Lucky in geography refers to the fact that we escaped the ravages of war on our soil and were able to parlay that into prosperity of which the world has never seen before. There's simply no disputing the fact that we have two extremely large bodies of water off our eastern-most and western-most states.

4/18/12 10:55 AM

You forgot to send that memo to the crew of the USS Arizona.

cubanbob said...

Hmm if the SCOTUS rules Obamacare valid, then President Romney and the republican congress should mandate that every able bodied person (other than prisoners) should be mandated to provide for themselves. Imagine the savings for the federal, state and local governments and taxpayers.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... You forgot to send that memo to the crew of the USS Arizona...."

Oh for Christs sake he meant we never had armies marching across the fruited plains turning the country into a wasteland like Eastern Europe. Pearl Harbor wasn't The Blitz. Our cities weren't turned to rubble and we didn't need to relocate our industry so it wasn't overrun by the Wehrmacht.

Scott M said...

You forgot to send that memo to the crew of the USS Arizona.

Nitpick much? If you couldn't glean from my comments that I was talking about generalities, there's not much I can do to help you.

cubanbob said...

Scott M said...
You forgot to send that memo to the crew of the USS Arizona.

Nitpick much? If you couldn't glean from my comments that I was talking about generalities, there's not much I can do to help you.

4/18/12 11:25 AM

The devil is in the details, too bad the facts render your premise baseless. Now tell us how those vast oceans will render us invincible to attack by ICBM's and other similar type weapons. I didn't make any sense in 1941 and even less now.

Synova said...

The other day, in response to some mention on the news of Obama pouring money into the community, my brother (who doesn't care for him but what trying to be fair) said something like, "well, that's good."

The problem is, in order for government to pour money into the community it must first suck the money out of the community.

Crunchy Frog said...

Oh for Christs sake he meant we never had armies marching across the fruited plains turning the country into a wasteland like Eastern Europe. Pearl Harbor wasn't The Blitz. Our cities weren't turned to rubble and we didn't need to relocate our industry so it wasn't overrun by the Wehrmacht.

And Sherman just went on a liesurely stroll to Atlanta.

cubanbob said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"... You forgot to send that memo to the crew of the USS Arizona...."

Oh for Christs sake he meant we never had armies marching across the fruited plains turning the country into a wasteland like Eastern Europe. Pearl Harbor wasn't The Blitz. Our cities weren't turned to rubble and we didn't need to relocate our industry so it wasn't overrun by the Wehrmacht.

4/18/12 11:25 AM

If Hitler had not screwed up Dunkirk and Tojo Pearl Harbor (and had FDR been completely asleep in 1940) things may have turned out a bit differently. And If Stalin hadn't been such a paranoid fool by annihilating the cream of the Soviet military leadership operation Barbarossa might never have happened. Or the war in Europe. But since history isn't like an episode of The Twilight Zone that shows alternate histories the safe bet is always to go by the adversaries potential threat and take appropriate measures.

So while you can make his (RD) case somewhat, there is nothing exceptional about it, the same applies to Canada and Brazil among others.

wyo sis said...

Capitalism almost always precedes Socialism, so it's more likely that Capitalism gives rise to Socialism. The dark side of Capitalism is pride and greed which gives opportunists the chance to use class warfare as a wedge issue. If people could be prosperous without becoming selfish and greedy the cycle would break. I think that's why the founding fathers believed that only a righteous citizenry could hold on to our unique republic.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... And Sherman just went on a liesurely stroll to Atlanta..."

Perspective isn't much of a forte among some here.

Tell ya what, check out Euopean history from, oh let's say 1776 onward and compare the level of warfare there versus what the US suffered in wars on our soil and get back to me.

wyo sis said...

There could be reasons that the oceans would be enough of a barrier to keep the Americas isolated even today if all infrastructure were to break down and the oceans become unnavigable. It worked for thousands of years. It's highly unlikely, maybe even impossible, but the relative isolation of the Americas could come into play even now. Geography really does matter.

Crimso said...

"the same applies to Canada and Brazil among others."

His original point was that the US stood strong and intact at the end of WWII; whereas the greatest industrial nation of Europe was in near total ruin, and much of the rest of continent was damaged.

We survived unscathed (silly references to the Arizona notwithstanding) and were perfectly positioned to a) take up the industrial slack resulting from the devastation of Europe (and prosper as a result), and b) maintain a very strong standing military (paid for by that prosperity) which was then used as a shield for the eventual NATO countries. Those countries have not been as willing to fund strong militaries because they can rely on us but also because the period of 1914-1945 left them with no appetite for fighting (understandably so).

In invoking Brazil and Canada, you miss the crucial point that the US was very strong industrially, and became more so as the war progressed. The sheer might of American industry during WWII was a trump card. Being insulated from the immediate ravages of the war meant that trump card remained intact.

Sherman didn't have to bring an army over an ocean to reach Atlanta. We did that all by ourselves.

Scott M said...

I didn't make any sense in 1941 and even less now.

I agree with this, cubanbob. You do make less sense now.

Clyde said...

I think The Offspring said it best:

I won't pay, I won't pay ya,
No wa-a-a-ay,
Na na, why don't you get a job?

Clyde said...

And Brazil is not a transcontinental nation; it has no Pacific border!

Kirk Parker said...

Cubanbob,

"I didn't make any sense in 1941 and even less now."

I love you, bro, and you're really on the right side of things (other than this current little pissing contest), but man oh man that is a typo from God!

cubanbob said...

Crimso said...
"the same applies to Canada and Brazil among others."

His original point was that the US stood strong and intact at the end of WWII; whereas the greatest industrial nation of Europe was in near total ruin, and much of the rest of continent was damaged.

That is more due to the fact that we won, thanks to the strength of the US Navy and our code breaking abilities.
Had Midway turned out different and Stalin not have been such a fool by murdering the brightest of his general staff and Hitler not screwing things up at Dunkirk things might have been different. I'm not saying that a combined German and Japanese invasion would have been successful but they might have tried it. And like I said before, the oceans offer little protection against ICBM's.

cubanbob said...

Clyde said...
And Brazil is not a transcontinental nation; it has no Pacific border!

4/18/12 1:00 PM

Thanks for pointing out the obvious and overlooking the fact that Brazil happens to be the same size as the US (and albeit in a small role a combatant in WW2). The very size of a largely populated country like the US or Brazil makes a sustained foreign invasion unlikely but not impossible given the right circumstances. As for oceans protecting a large continent sized country from invasion, somebody forgot to give the memo the the Australian government in 1942.

bagoh20 said...

Lucky geography hasn't done much for all of Latin America, or Africa, so there must be something else at play.

Rusty said...

winder?

wonder

Michael McNeil said...

Both sides are right in this debate. Yes, geography has given America (some) protection against foreign invasion — and luckily the Germans never attained the atomic bomb and ICBM's that they sought during World War II before the reversing tides of war inundated it.

But that's only part of the story — the character of America is the other (huge) part of it. Insightful visitor to the fledgling America, Alexis de Tocqueville perhaps put it best, while comparing the enormous difference between the slave and free mentality in this country:

“These contrasting effects of slavery and of freedom are easy to understand; they are enough to explain the differences between ancient civilization and modern.

“On the left bank of the Ohio work is connected with the idea of slavery, but on the right with well-being and progress; on the one side it is degrading, but on the other honorable; on the left bank no white laborers are to be found, for they would be afraid of being like the slaves; for work people must rely on the Negroes; but one will never see a man of leisure on the right bank: the white man's intelligent activity is used for work of every sort. […]

“The influence of slavery extends even further, penetrating the master's soul and giving a particular turn to his ideas and tastes.

“On both banks of the Ohio live people with characters by nature enterprising and energetic, but these common characteristics are turned to different use on one side and the other.

“The white man on the right bank, forced to live by his own endeavors, has made material well-being the main object of his existence; as he lives in a country offering inexhaustible resources to his industry and continual inducements to activity, his eagerness to possess things goes beyond the ordinary limits of human cupidity; tormented by a longing for wealth, he boldly follows every path to fortune that is open to him; he is equally prepared to turn into a sailor, pioneer, artisan, or cultivator, facing the labors or dangers of these various ways of life with even constancy; there is something wonderful in his resourcefulness and a sort of heroism in his greed for gain.

“The American on the left bank scorns not only work itself but also enterprises in which work is necessary to success; living in idle ease, he has the tastes of idle men; money has lost some of its value in his eyes; he is less interested in wealth than in excitement and pleasure and expends in that direction the energy which his neighbor puts to other use; he is passionately fond of hunting and war; he enjoys all the most strenuous forms of bodily exercise; he is accustomed to the use of weapons and from childhood has been ready to risk his life in single combat. Slavery therefore not only prevents the white men from making their fortunes but even diverts them from wishing to do so.

“The constant operation of these opposite influences throughout two centuries in the English North American colonies has in the end brought about a vast difference in the commercial capabilities of southerners and northerners. Today the North alone has ships, manufactures, railways, and canals.”

Crimso said...

"I'm not saying that a combined German and Japanese invasion would have been successful but they might have tried it."

I'm not entirely in disagreement, and you are correct that in the age of the ICBM we lose much of the geographical advantage that, say, Poland would kill for. However, IIRC (would have to do a little research to be sure), the great majority of Japanese land forces were somewhat busy in China during all of this. I doubt they would have abandoned China to invade us, since IMO the war actually started there in 1937 (not 1 Sept 1939). I think they would have been content with preventing us from projecting power (using our geographical isolation against us), but I still don't think they and the Germans combined could have made a dent in our industrial advantage. Interesting what-ifs to ponder, though.

Nora said...

The problem with those who want socialism/communism is that they did not actually read Marx. If they did, they would know that similarily to a fairy tale he did not define the "ever after" part.