J.D. Vance's sloppy take on socialism

The USA vice president recently commented on what he thought socialism was intended to be, and did not give a good response:

“Socialism, classically, was about prioritizing workers. ... Now I think that, in reality, what it truly means in the American context is wanting to replace American workers with foreign workers, and wanting boys to participate in girls’ sports.”

That was the response given by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance during a press gaggle Thursday when asked for his definition of socialism. His remarks have since drawn commentary from the vast community of exiles from socialist regimes who have found refuge in the United States.

The Vice President’s statement was “the worst answer I’ve heard from a conservative in decades,” according to Venezuelan activist Emanuel Rincón. “The truth is that socialists have never cared about workers; they have cared about dominating the means of production or the profits derived from them, about holding total power and harassing citizens, and about extinguishing freedoms — not about doing what J.D. Vance suggests here.”

And this is why there are folks out there who believe Vance will not make a good candidate for POTUS in the next few years. He really blew it, and emerges little better than he did when discussing Israel, in example. And he didn't help matters when he said the other year that if Iranians want to topple the autocracy, "it's up to them". That was very ill-advised too.

While I agree with Rincón, there is some truth to what the vice president said: modern socialism is intrinsically linked to “wokeism” and its ridiculous ideas.

It’s unrealistic to expect a politician to look good or be perfectly on point every time they appear on camera. We are all human beings. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to clarify the concept of socialism — an ideology that has led to the worst horrors known in modern history on every continent where it has been implemented.

Socialism originated as an idea to transform economic and political systems, as well as class relations. Karl Marx, the quintessential intellectual of that ideology, illustrated this in his Critique of the Gotha Program, describing it as a “cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production.”

Socialists described socialism as the first rung — the phase immediately preceding — in the establishment of a communist society in which the State would cease to exist. Yet, to “socialize” the means of production (in plain terms: stripping ownership from those who held it), it was imperative to employ the coercive force of that very State they claimed would eventually be abolished.

Do you follow the idea? I know it sounds crazy, but believe me: someone like me — who lived under a totalitarian system where these concepts were treated as gospel — can attest that they are not merely foolish, but malevolent. My country, Cuba, went from having an economy that rivaled those of Europe to competing with Haiti for the lowest rank in the hemisphere. My city, Havana — which once boasted more movie theaters than Paris or New York — has now become, as I have said before, a “Pompeii of Salt.”

And Vance isn't well informed on that? Sigh. And let's also consider that Islam follows similar paths in its ideology, and many places that fell to Islam like Iran, have been turned into horror stories even worse. Vance needs to brush up on his knowledge, but for now, he's provided more reasons not to support him as a full presidential candidate if he runs for nomination in 2 years.