Letter to a Socialist.
Ok so this was a Myspace series of communications. There may be ongoing chapters if he replies. As Back Ground this is some 19 year old Boy angry at the world.
I'm a socialist. If any of you socialists think that means I'm complete evil, go ahead and delete me, I'm tired of dealing with ignorant capitalist-supremacists. (I assume here he meant "If any of you capitalists")
You're young, Loving and trusting the government is trendy with the kids these days. I'm a Lessaiz Faire Capitalist, Rugged Individualist and Minarchist. (I bet they don't teach that shit in school do they.
They do teach that, actually.
I neither love nor do I trust the government. Socialism doesn't have much to do with either.
I don't have any beef with you as long as you don't hold ignorant bigoted opinions. I don't care if you're a capitalist, it's no problem to me, I'm just annoyed when capitalists hold absurd opinions and hatred of socialists. Most republicans don't even understand the difference in communism and socialism, which is where I get a problem with it.
Well I am definitely not a Republican....
And there is a serious difference between a Lessaiz Faire Capitalist, and what you think capitalists are.
Now... The notion that socialism Has nothing to do with the government is a new one to me.
How is a socialist system maintained without government force?
How is an economy centrally planned and regulated without a Government agency? How is wealth redistributed without a Tax collector and welfare division?
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation
The Problem of course with this concept is you cannot have equality for all individuals when all individuals are not equal.
And of course state ownership and administration of the means of production, well that is the government.
Early socialist thinkers tended to favor more authentic meritocracy, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach. There is disagreement over the extent that National Socialism is socialist; although Adolf Hitler's party program included socialist elements, the Nazis did not nationalize industry, but instead created a highly regulated economy with state-led economic planning
Of Course if you consider yourself a more primative type socialist... then you simply lack the wealth redistribution and egalitarian touches that make it what American Liberals are pushing towards today.
Now if you are advocating that asinine European notion of "Social Anarchism" or "Libertarian Socialism" First off Libertarian Socialism is an abominable word in which a word coined to represent individuality and meritocratic society has been harnessed for the use by Fabianist minded peoples to increase their public appearance of supporting liberty while in actuality they are not interested in liberty in the slightest. Social Anarchism and anarcho-communism are no different, they are just trying out new words. But within this notion you still have a ruling body that decides who gets what, they just don't call themselves a government. But a Co-Op is still a collective. A Hive. The Members are Drones. It is Still Anti-Individual.
So Perhaps you are a Trotskyist. Of course after the Revolution, Lenin made sure that Trotsky couldn't oppose him in the restructuring of post Revolutionary USSR. It seems the popular socialists who run the world don't like your kind too much, if Trotsky is to be held as an example.
Is it Morally wrong to take something from another without Permission? (Taking by Force)
Is it Morally wrong to hold a gun to someone's head until they give That permission? (coercion by force)
If you believe that the above 2 questions are Morally Acceptable, then indeed you are a collectivist of some form. Those are the only ways collectivism can be sustained.
Now there are some deluded people who think that somehow the exceptionally intelligent or the exceptionally strong will be happy working themselves to their full capacity to earn what some committee deems they deserve, while an exceptionally dumb or physically incapable person who cannot produce to their capacity earns on a similar manner based on egalitarian distribution rather than meritocratic ones.
Yes I have a harsh view of Socialism, Communism, Fabianism, Liberalism, Progressivism... Because all of them hold a view that some central committee has the right to take from those who create through force or coercion and give to those who consume with no regards to the creators. They Are all forms of Collectivism. Collectivism is morally repugnant.
There is a Simple Question to ask...
"By what right?"
By what right does someone demand without fair compensation?
How is that moral? How is that Peaceful? That is aggressive theft and brutal force.
Socialist policies have failed repeatedly in every country that has tried them since the late 1800's. The People of those countries have suffered in misery and squalor. Their medical Needs neglected, their standard of living lower the poorest Americans. Except of course the Government employees and overseers. Those men Enjoyed the quality of life that the Bourgeois tyrants that they over threw in bloody and violent revolution or Looted and robbed publicly through slow fabianist doctrine.
So go ahead. Believe in socialist doctrine as envisioned by Karl Marx.
I'll Believe in Myself.
Feel free to consider me one of those dickhead capitalists you seem to feel persecuted by, I assure you I would probably rip them apart for their support of this false sense of capitalism we have in the US. This isn't capitalism, this is Cronyism. This is Bribery of the rich and powerful using the government to maintain Riches and Power.
Capitalism is the fair exchange of goods and services at an agreed upon value. Does what we have here resemble that at all?
Feel free to respond about what is so wonderful about socialism, But if you choose to instead indict or critique Capitalism, it had better be Capitalism as defined by Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand or Adam Smith. Not this crude Wealth accumulation by any means available Cronyism that the corporate run media and the liberal run public schools keeps calling capitalism.
Click behind the cut because Freedom of thought offends some people and if you happen to work in a Gov't agency it may be NSFW lol.
I'm a socialist. If any of you socialists think that means I'm complete evil, go ahead and delete me, I'm tired of dealing with ignorant capitalist-supremacists. (I assume here he meant "If any of you capitalists")
You're young, Loving and trusting the government is trendy with the kids these days. I'm a Lessaiz Faire Capitalist, Rugged Individualist and Minarchist. (I bet they don't teach that shit in school do they.
They do teach that, actually.
I neither love nor do I trust the government. Socialism doesn't have much to do with either.
I don't have any beef with you as long as you don't hold ignorant bigoted opinions. I don't care if you're a capitalist, it's no problem to me, I'm just annoyed when capitalists hold absurd opinions and hatred of socialists. Most republicans don't even understand the difference in communism and socialism, which is where I get a problem with it.
Well I am definitely not a Republican....
And there is a serious difference between a Lessaiz Faire Capitalist, and what you think capitalists are.
Now... The notion that socialism Has nothing to do with the government is a new one to me.
How is a socialist system maintained without government force?
How is an economy centrally planned and regulated without a Government agency? How is wealth redistributed without a Tax collector and welfare division?
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation
The Problem of course with this concept is you cannot have equality for all individuals when all individuals are not equal.
And of course state ownership and administration of the means of production, well that is the government.
Early socialist thinkers tended to favor more authentic meritocracy, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach. There is disagreement over the extent that National Socialism is socialist; although Adolf Hitler's party program included socialist elements, the Nazis did not nationalize industry, but instead created a highly regulated economy with state-led economic planning
Of Course if you consider yourself a more primative type socialist... then you simply lack the wealth redistribution and egalitarian touches that make it what American Liberals are pushing towards today.
Now if you are advocating that asinine European notion of "Social Anarchism" or "Libertarian Socialism" First off Libertarian Socialism is an abominable word in which a word coined to represent individuality and meritocratic society has been harnessed for the use by Fabianist minded peoples to increase their public appearance of supporting liberty while in actuality they are not interested in liberty in the slightest. Social Anarchism and anarcho-communism are no different, they are just trying out new words. But within this notion you still have a ruling body that decides who gets what, they just don't call themselves a government. But a Co-Op is still a collective. A Hive. The Members are Drones. It is Still Anti-Individual.
So Perhaps you are a Trotskyist. Of course after the Revolution, Lenin made sure that Trotsky couldn't oppose him in the restructuring of post Revolutionary USSR. It seems the popular socialists who run the world don't like your kind too much, if Trotsky is to be held as an example.
Is it Morally wrong to take something from another without Permission? (Taking by Force)
Is it Morally wrong to hold a gun to someone's head until they give That permission? (coercion by force)
If you believe that the above 2 questions are Morally Acceptable, then indeed you are a collectivist of some form. Those are the only ways collectivism can be sustained.
Now there are some deluded people who think that somehow the exceptionally intelligent or the exceptionally strong will be happy working themselves to their full capacity to earn what some committee deems they deserve, while an exceptionally dumb or physically incapable person who cannot produce to their capacity earns on a similar manner based on egalitarian distribution rather than meritocratic ones.
Yes I have a harsh view of Socialism, Communism, Fabianism, Liberalism, Progressivism... Because all of them hold a view that some central committee has the right to take from those who create through force or coercion and give to those who consume with no regards to the creators. They Are all forms of Collectivism. Collectivism is morally repugnant.
There is a Simple Question to ask...
"By what right?"
By what right does someone demand without fair compensation?
How is that moral? How is that Peaceful? That is aggressive theft and brutal force.
Socialist policies have failed repeatedly in every country that has tried them since the late 1800's. The People of those countries have suffered in misery and squalor. Their medical Needs neglected, their standard of living lower the poorest Americans. Except of course the Government employees and overseers. Those men Enjoyed the quality of life that the Bourgeois tyrants that they over threw in bloody and violent revolution or Looted and robbed publicly through slow fabianist doctrine.
So go ahead. Believe in socialist doctrine as envisioned by Karl Marx.
I'll Believe in Myself.
Feel free to consider me one of those dickhead capitalists you seem to feel persecuted by, I assure you I would probably rip them apart for their support of this false sense of capitalism we have in the US. This isn't capitalism, this is Cronyism. This is Bribery of the rich and powerful using the government to maintain Riches and Power.
Capitalism is the fair exchange of goods and services at an agreed upon value. Does what we have here resemble that at all?
Feel free to respond about what is so wonderful about socialism, But if you choose to instead indict or critique Capitalism, it had better be Capitalism as defined by Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand or Adam Smith. Not this crude Wealth accumulation by any means available Cronyism that the corporate run media and the liberal run public schools keeps calling capitalism.
Click behind the cut because Freedom of thought offends some people and if you happen to work in a Gov't agency it may be NSFW lol.