Without Socialism

LET'S BE CAREFUL to make neither too much, nor too little of the death of hugo chavez. Was he a tyrannt? Absolutely. Did he advocate for the poor? He did, in that he seized much of the wealth of his country, and redistributed some of it, while probably keeping some of it for himself. Like many politicians, he became wealthy while in office, and, like harry truman once said, you cannot do that by being honest.

For those conservatives among you who denounce chavez for being a socialist, which would you do away with? Social security, medicare, medicaid? Minimum wage? All of the above, considering the nature of wealthy american conservatives.

Would you do away with the process of incorporation? Or patents? Or bankruptcy? All of these, dear conservative friends, are socialistic devices, government mandated programs created for the very purpose of propping up capitalism, and preventing the free market from consuming itself, and everone else, save for a few extremely prosperous few.

In a free market, anyone who participates in any business would bear the full responsibility of that participation, without hiding behind a conceptual  entity. Any good or service to enter the market would immediately be available to anyone wishing to exploit it, and anyone whose business failed would be responsbile for all debt incurred thereat, without using bankruptcy to evade responsiblility.

The united states is, at least in large part, a socialist country.
why, the very process of magically, mysteriously converting a business into a hypothetical human being, a legal fiction of a person, in order to relieve its real human participants of the responsibility for their own actions- is an atrificial economic device intended to prop up business.

Without socialism, there can be no capitalism.