Socialist Leaders Condemn Wealth While Getting Rich

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, Apr 5, 2013.

  1. pspr


    Hypocrites all.

    Socialism is in theory a system of government that brings equality to society. But the reality is far different. As George Orwell once noted, some members of a socialist society are always more equal than the others.

    The socialist government of France is enduring a juicy scandal this week. It seems recently resigned budget minister Jerome Cahuzac has admitted to a Swiss bank account holding about 600,000 euros. This shouldn't be a big deal. But it is, because:

    • Cahuzac was "until two weeks ago responsible for cracking down on tax evasion," reports France 24 International News, and his Swiss account was part of his scheme "to avoid paying taxes in France."

    • No one in a socialist society is supposed to be better off than his fellow man. Only dirty capitalists use foreign banks to enrich themselves.

    • Under socialism, taxes are embraced, not avoided.

    To the socialist, wealth is contemptible — except when socialist leaders are rich. For reasons we don't understand, it was fine for Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez to die with a net worth of $1 billion, while the country's per-capita GDP languished at 96th in the world, according to the CIA World Factbook.

    Same with taxes. As Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds says, taxes are for the little people. Big shots such as Cahuzac don't need to pay them. Think Chavez ever paid taxes? The Castro brothers? Daniel Ortega?

    We are tempted to think that the soft socialists of Europe might be more self-conscious about paying their taxes even as they push for more onerous tax regimes. But now we have the example of Cahuzac, don't we? So we can't say that with any confidence.

    This hypocrisy is found in the U.S., as well.

    We don't have a working socialist party in this country, but the "progressive" Democrats are doing quite well at holding up the standard. So we ask: Who among Democratic lawmakers and party leadership is in middle-class solidarity with the working man?

    And which big mouth of the Hollywood left, who votes Democrat and pretends he or she believes in equality, actually exercises it?

    They all inveigh against capitalism. And all have made it work for them in their personal lives.

    But the real shame of Cahuzac's fall is his groveling. He has begged for forgiveness from his "former colleagues in government" for the "damage" he caused them. We'd have more respect for him if he openly defended his wealth and capitalistic efforts, rather than cravenly apologizing for owning something.
  2. Of course.

    Socialism/Communism/Marxism... any kind of "State-ism" is all about:

    1. Ruling class wealthy/relatively wealthy while the hoi polloi are more-or-less impoverished. IOW... 90-ish% of the population end up being slaves for the ruling elites.

    2. Hoi polloi being content that "most folks are not better off than I am", so I don't have much to bitch about". (Actually, they DO... they're just too short-sighted, stupid and greedy to "get it".)

    THAT'S Odumbo's vision for America.... and the greedy, parasite class has lapped it up.

  3. pspr


    It's just a two class society. The few leaders at the top and everyone else down at the bottom.
  4. Champagne socialists.
  5. Lucrum


    ...and limousine liberals.
  6. nitro


    I understand the conundrum well. I am of two minds on the very subject, and feel a disgust that my life is dedicated towards the acquisition of wealth. So it is best to understand the phenomena than to simply call people hypocrite, because there is no questiont that WE ALL ARE.

    I think what happens is that we grow up in a material society, so those feelings are inbred into us from a very early age. As we progress in conciousness through education and experience, many of us realize what an empty self-serving existance it is. We begin to feel guilt when we see that 20,000+ children die on a daily basis (some people never give it a second thought). We begin to wonder how much of our wealth is "zero sum". We begin to have a split mind of our very existance. We are disgusted with ourselves.

    What I believe now is what Picasso believed:

    "I want to live like a poor man with lots of money" - Pablo Picasso

    Warren Buffet [sort of] lives this way. The reason for me is mostly one of not having to worry about things like not having enough to deal with old age, or being able to afford an education, or having to slave away at some stupid job. To be able to impact people by giving it away anonymously. It has nothing to do with huge houses or fancy cars or snorting coke or yatchs or planes or fancy clothes or fancy food or having a trophy wife or or or...
  7. jem


    nitro... you guilt is based on self reflection and a desire to do better.

    95% to 100% of leftist politicians are being leftists for power, money, and their acquisition thereof.

    How do I know this everyone in the world knew then and knows now they should have gone to single payer for Obamacare. There is not a single lefty who does not know that. Yet they all caved to their insurance company bribes and money. Real leftists would have gotten together and told their party to tell insurance to go to hell and they would have advanced an important and perhaps useful piece of socialism.

    And you can not blame Republicans or compromise for this.
    It passed without a single republican vote.

    By the ways the Republicans passing Medicare Part D was just as bad. The drug companies used the same lobbyists to pull that crap on us.
  8. Comunists distribute wealth,whereas Capitalists invest in their own fat asses
  9. So... which do you favor?
  10. wjk


    Anyone ever see a socialist or communist leader who didn't live a life of privilege and luxury after attaining their power?

    Somehow they convince the useful idiots that they are the party of the poor by throwing a few bones their way, thus securing and retaining their vote (in such countries where voting is permitted and/or not totally rigged).

    Anyone ever see a progressive idea that actually raises the lowest common denominator to a higher level rather than the other way around?
    #10     Apr 6, 2013