May 24, 2013
I have never
believed in socialism. I have always observed it to be a means to transfer
wealth from the hard-working to the lazy or from the thrifty to the
greedy. That unsustainable concept is against the laws of Nature. It
is common to speak of socialism as an altruistic society. But the
"altruism" of supporters seems to be only to the extent that someone
else, not them, should pay the tab. Some include themselves paying a
little but they want to force that on others -- i.e. be generous with other
people's money. Egality interpreted as equal sharing sounds great.
The concept of equal work is conveniently overlooked. Supporters of
socialism seem to fall into two camps: (1) lazy and greedy people who want to
benefit from the work of others, (2) people who may be hard working but are
jealous and lust for the wealth of those who live a higher life style because
those people have worked harder or smarter -- the hope is that socialism would
knock them down for it is easier to tear down rather than build up. There
is no example of socialism ever building a society -- it can't -- it can only
tap into the wealth created by those who have produced for society in a
pre-socialist era. Free enterprise, often referred to as capitalism, can
not work with socialist subsidies that distort the value of money and of
goods. Socialism can not work without subsidies from confiscated wealth
produced by various free market means. Socialism being non-sustainable
collapses when the wealth runs out as socialism is a consumption based system
rather than a production based system. Capitalism is the accelerator on
economic progress. Socialism is the brake.
Over the years I
have noticed a consistent theme among those who advocate socialism (never
directly but in one of its softer forms that I refer to as neo-socialism such as
economic justice, social justice, economic democracy etc.) is that invariably
they want someone else to pay for either their own benefit or for the benefit of
some group of people they champion. They are willing to pay a tiny amount
that has minimal effect on their own lives leaving the bulk to be taken from
people whose earnings they are jealous of. In their minds this shows that
they are compassionate while those who have worked for the money that is going
to be expropriated are greedy. That is the hypocrisy of socialism and is
why it can never be self sustaining -- ultimately the "needs" of the masses
exceeds that which can be expropriated from the minority of wealth
The most recent neo-socialist term is Sustainable
Capitalism coined by Algore. The concept speaks of the
virtues of capitalism but then sneaks into social issues inferring that
capitalism owes the lazy a living. My question is that if socialism is so
great then why do the advocates hide behind deceptive phrases? What is
wrong with the truth?
socialism: Greed is lusting to get
for free what someone else had to work for.
is ironic that those who depend for their existence on high taxation and charity
refer to the providers as "greedy?"
Apparently there are a variety of
definitions of socialism around the world and I have found that some people who
email me with exceptions to my views have a significantly different
definition and we are actually in agreement on many points. The
definition I use for socialism is: Socialism is a form of government
that taxes or extracts money from those working hard and disburses it
to those who prefer to do the least work possible yet enjoy the benefits of
society. Socialism should not be confused with charity or altruism.
It is one thing to help someone with a problem. It is an entirely
different matter to subsidize someone to be a problem. In typical
practice, just enough dole is handed out to keep the receivers satisfied enough
to continue voting for the socialist party in power thus keeping party members
rich. Capitalizing on human kind's natural tendency towards laziness,
socialism is a system to enrich the few while duping the population to
believe that it advocates for the many. In the end, socialism is all about
greed -- but subverted to need to justify feeling entitled to freely receive
what others had to work for. Socialism depends on somebody else doing the
work. Socialism fails when there is nobody else. Thus, socialism is
Socialist fairness: The harder you work the more you owe the state. The
less you work the more the state owes you.
question: Do you prefer socialism because you get to enjoy
benefits paid for by someone else or do you prefer socialism because you enjoy
personally transferring your earned wealth to someone who did not earn
it? I strongly suspect that 100% of the honest answers relate to the first
part. Do you believe that people should be able to live their lives free
of imposition or should all people except the beneficiaries of
socialism be imposed upon by the whims of socialists? I strongly suspect
that 100% of the honest answers relate to the second part. In short,
socialism is a euphemism for greed. It is ironic that socialists have the
audacity to refer to capitalists as greedy -- where do they think their
socialist benefits come from -- from the hard working lazy???
Here is an
excellent site with a number of must read articles: Socialism does not
euphenisms: I plan to post a writing about a euphemism for
socialism that I call emotonomics -- a combination of
emotion and economics. A related concept is
feelygoodonomics. Another term is
fartonomics as people's rectums exude so much shit
about economics that they must be smart. Emoting seems to be very common
these days but it is nearly always wrong. Emotion frequently drives people
towards socialist concepts (even if they are devout capitalists) because of a
misguided belief that all people are striving and equal and that the wealth of
others (very little of themselves) should be shared to create a utopian
egalitarian society. That has never worked and will never work for the
simple reason that subsidizing laziness does not lead to hard work. But a
lot of people like to use emotion as a substitute for knowledge and wisdom
because that path is much easier and always leads to feeling good -- I am such a
generous person (with other people's money). There are real people who
dedicate their lives to assisting those in need -- honest need versus
laziness recast as need. I am not talking about these truly generous
people because they literally put their efforts where their mouth is -- unlike
the hypocritical majority. Their actions are not socialist -- regardless
of their political perspective. Doing something voluntarily is an act of
freedom. For the same reason, voluntarily giving to various charities is
not a socialist deed although it seems that many people confuse charity and
socialism -- it should be noted that many of the wealthiest capitalists are also
major philanthropists. The important point is voluntary versus
imposed. Socialism is always imposed -- interesting, if it is so good then
why doesn't it work naturally? Thus, if it is not imposed then it can not
be socialism (the pseudo-intellectual simplistic inverse is not valid --
imposition does not prove that something is socialist). Many people
confuse insurance with socialism. By definition it is impossible for
insurance to be socialism because in order to collect (for direct self insurable
losses), one must have paid premiums. The point of socialism is that one
is entitled to collect period and is exempt from paying premiums if those are
too inconvenient -- thus someone else has to be forced to pay. There are
other euphemisms: entitlenomics (I are entitled to what you have), needonomics
(I needs stuff and it is wrong for me to have to afford it), etc.
Socialism and Slavery: I am confident that the
vast majority of socialists and non-socialists (i.e. people like me) are highly
against slavery that has (and still) occurs around the world and that happened
in the early years of America in the South. May such a horrid concept
never occur again. But it is interesting to observe that slavery is a form
of socialism. A huge tax (i.e. labor) is imposed on one group of
people for the benefit of a privileged group of people. On
average, all enjoy a better standard of living from the collective
labor. The obvious problem is the word, average which is only a
hypothetical since each person individually enjoys (if that is the word)
well above or well below average benefits. Now transform the concept to
today's society where the socialist objective is for the top workers (doctors,
engineers, etc.) to pay top tax so that the lesser workers and those that don't
work at all (like privileged classes of before) can enjoy the benefits of the
labor of someone else. Isn't that essentially slavery? One might
make the distinction (implicitly endorsing the slavery concept) that the labor
is not forced. I will let you think about that for a while -- more to
The "immorality" of being self
sufficient: There are certain philosophies that it is morally
wrong to make money work for you -- as in collecting interest, but in some cases
extended to dividend or royalty income streams, property appreciation,
etc. These totally moronic concepts have been around for centuries in some
religions and are designed to keep the population permanently in need of
assistance and therefore politically (particularly including religious politics)
controllable. Such a concept implies that it is wrong to work hard and
save or invest for one's future. Money received from such is
immoral. Yet, money received for being lazy is moral. So it is wrong
to make money work for you and right for someone else to work for you -- i.e.
slavery. Clearly, I do not understand this and I do not even want to waste
my time with pseudo-intellectual religious bullshit. I have worked hard in
life. I have avoided doing the wrong things: drugs, crime, etc. I
have made many wise investments that will pay for my retirement so that I am not
a socialist ward of the state. I do not feel guilty. I also do not
believe in the supremacy of religious leaders but rather in the supremacy of
Nature over highly imperfect man-made religions.
GOVERNMENT AXIOMS (from an
email circulation, author(s) unknown)
• You cannot legislate the
poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
• What one person receives without working
for, another person must work for without receiving.
• The government cannot give to anybody anything that the
government does not first take from somebody else.
• When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to
work because the other half is going to take care
of them, and
when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
else is going to
get what they work for, that my dear friend,
is the beginning of the end of any nation.
• You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Interestingly, I receive considerably more emails from people who
disagree with my anti-socialist writings than those who agree. Maybe this
is because those who agree do not take the time to write or maybe few people
agree with me. I welcome all points of view. I do have some
questions for those who disagree. I ask these questions because there are
some things about socialism that have never made sense to me. I have asked
people who favor some form of socialism but they only change the subject or
recast the question into a totally different form and I am left with no useful
1. Why should person 'A' work hard, live right,
have to pay for everything they consume, etc. and be taxed so that person 'B'
can be lazy, live wrong, receive free money, and pay no taxes?
The unacceptable answers (based on recasting the question) that I have received
indicate that person 'A' is fortunate to have his wealth while person 'B' is
unfortunate. It is thus only proper and just for person 'A' to share his
good fortune, if not by choice then via taxes. There exists at least one
example of someone who is incapacitated and unable to work (thus implying all
people who do not work are incapacitated) and need the charity that socialism
provides. In short I am told that my question is wrong -- there are no
person 'A's or person 'B's -- the 'A' types are the beneficiaries of government
handouts and the 'B' types are those cheated by greedy 'A'
2. If socialism is about equality then how can the
real scenario of question 1 be explained? The basic answer I
receive is that some people have more needs than others. I do not doubt
that but it does not answer the question of what makes person 'B' special?
But then I am told that I ask the wrong questions.
should my net income be if as an example 'A' person I decide to quit work and
become an example 'B' person? The answer I receive here is that
person 'A' owes a debt to society and must work. But this leads me back to
question 2 -- if we are all equal then how can one person owe to society while
another is owed from society? Then I am back to question 1. The
orthogonal answers I receive keep leading me in circles.
Should I be paid according to my needs or according to the effort I put
in? As an example, suppose I am employed doing a task that only
requires some brain power for a few hours a day. What should my income be
relative to someone who performs menial labor all day? In answering
the question, consider the decades of personal investment time I put in to
develop a rare skill. Is my job really as easy as I made is sound?
If so then why do so few achieve that? Suppose I live very conservatively
and am healthy and without other burdens in life while the person who does some
menial task has numerous burdens. Should that be taken into account in
determining net income? It is really a complicated question but at the
most fundamental my question concerns need versus value.
person 'A' voluntarily contributes to various charities does that mean that he
is practicing socialism even if he denys it? Many people think
that it is inconsistent for me to have my anti-socialist views and yet
voluntarily contribute to charities I believe in. My point is that the key
difference is voluntary versus forced.
These are just a few of my
questions. I will add more as I have time. The most fundamental
answer I receive to any question is that I just do not get it -- the virtues of
socialism are self evident -- implying that only a total moron (such as me)
would not comprehend.
The following illustrations generally show
how socialism fails.
A Lesson in
Socialism This is a short piece that shows the hypocrisy of
Education in Tax Cuts This is an interesting
story by an unknown author that provides a clear example of how the socialist
thought process implodes. Although fiction, the story seems remarkably real -
you know people who really think this way (think???, how???, there is no brain
activity. These duped people blindly follow socialist teachings - it sounds good
so it must be good).
How I Teach Socialism This is a short
piece intended for distribution written many years ago by Thomas J. Shelby
(Shelly? -- the print version I have is damaged and the name can not be clearly
read) who taught economics and history at Yonkers High School in New York. He
offered his students a plan that would enable them to enjoy the "benefits" of a
socialist grading system. He was gratified that after the students understood
all the consequences, that even those students who would "benefit" the most saw
the fallacy of the plan.
The Failure of Socialism I received this
in an email and it is one of the best examples I have seen of the failure of
Dollar Lesson in Socialism I received this as an email
and thought I would post it here. It is short and to the point.
A Socialist Explanation of Tax
Refunds This is an excellent analogy I received in an
Margaret Thatcher This quote about socialism is
attributed to Margaret Thatcher. According to Wikipedia she said
essentially the same thing but somewhat differently. This popular version
is more straightforward.
Socialism Applied to
Sports Does the fact that socialism fails miserably
in sports infer anything about socialism also failing in other aspects of life?
For some real examples of absurd socialist situations in sports, use the Google
search engine and search for the exact phrase, socialism in sports. You
will quickly see that the examples I made up are not far fetched.
The Ant and the
Grasshopper This is a humorous modern adaptation of
the fable of the ant and the grasshopper that has been on the email circuit.
Sadly, the story could almost be true. It was originally published in the
Libertarian Party publication, LP News, in the Forum section of the April
2000 issue, the author was anonymous. The version on my web site has been
circulated in various emails and is slightly different from the original. The
original version can be found at http://www.lp.org/. Look for back issues of LP
News, find the April 2000 issue, and go to the forum. Their site is not easy
to navigate so this may be a bit cumbersome.
Squirrels This is a fable I wrote using squirrels as
surrogates for people about how the United States will ultimately end -- wrecked
by the greed of socialism. The following link is an excerpt from a blog
exchange where The Compassionate Squirrels was referenced. It is so good that I
had to keep it. Squirrels on Blog
Extinction of the
Lions This is a fable I wrote using lions a surrogates
for people and describes how a good intentioned socialist government led to the
end of a pride of lions.
The Modern Little Red
Hen The little red hen of the classic fable learns a
modern lesson about socialism. Milliken & Company published this modern
adaptation as an advertisement some years ago. It can be found on several web
sites by using the Google search engine to search for the exact phrase, the
modern little red hen.
How to Catch A Wild
Pig This is an excellent story about duping people
into socialism that I received in an email. See the following link for the
Time to Take Down the Bird Feeder This
is an interesting short piece I received in an email using birds as
surrogates for people to illustrate the problem. The short story makes the
point that a free living leads to entitlement syndrome and the usual resulting
chaos. Unfortunately the story targets the immigrant population which
actually is not the problem. Domestic Americans thriving on the dole are
Gary Allen This is a brief quote about what seems to be
a paradox in socialism from the author, Gary Allen. It is presented here
as a one-page large-type format suitable for hanging on a wall.
Quote from Ayn
Rand This quote is a must read. Written over
fifty years ago, it exactly describes what is happening today in the United
Quote from Dr.
Adrian Pierce Rogers The truth about
This This is a question I have about socking it to the
rich. A lot of us might starve to death without them.
Quotes Here are three quotes by Krushchev concerning
the transition to socialism in America. People used to laugh at these --
it could never happen. It is
Greed? A quick thought suitable for posting on a wall
that answers the question.
Creation A copy of a letter to the editor in Barron's
that is really to the point.
Why Bother? Why bother to succeed in
life? Socialism is going to take care of you. In the end maybe that
is the problem.
Why I am an Anti-Socialist I have
written much against socialism. In case you are wondering, here is
Unlike advocates for socialism who present all kinds of
wonderful things to support their hidden agenda but rarely mention socialism by
name, let me fully disclose that I am very opposed to socialism and very much in
favor of free enterprise. I do not need to hide behind any clever definition of
the word, "is." My purpose in the following pages is to expose the propaganda
(a.k.a. lies) used to dupe people into socialism. I am a proud member of "the
vast right-wing conspiracy" against socialism. I disagree with the socialist
concept that "it takes a village to raise a child." One of the concepts America
was founded on was that the family, not the village (i.e. socialist bureaucracy)
should raise the child (for those not familiar with the preceding quotes, they
are from President Clinton and his socialist wife, Hillary).
Learning to Think If you
are going to be successful then you should read these books. If you want to
avoid being duped by socialism then you really need to learn how to think for
yourself so you can resist being conditioned to think or not think a particular
Good news / Bad news
The same news story presented in two different ways.
(coming someday) Alabama Awaken to the deceptions of Alabama Arise.
This advocacy group for the poor in Alabama has a reputation of putting out very
dramatic stories about how the poor are badly mistreated one way or another. I
intend to point out the tricks used in the presentations and provide balance. On
some issues they are right and I will point that out too but their proposed
solution is misguided - so I agree but disagree. I am concerned that many people
have been duped by their cleverly incomplete information (a.k.a. propaganda)
often published in The Birmingham News along with considerable editorial
support. The information put out is shocking and calls for action to correct
injustices - except for a few problems - the victims may be imaginary people,
incomplete arithmetic is used to compute tax burdens, and sad stories are
missing the complete truth. The real issue is not about people who have real
needs, but the shameful capitalization of the general ignorance and gullibility
of the masses to achieve political gain. There is a big difference between being
compassionate and being bamboozled. It is a classic example of why you should
check out the Learning to
Another group with a nice sounding name, Citizens for Tax Justice, also puts
out "facts" taken out of context and with clever juxtaposition (again,
propaganda) to paint a picture that the complete facts do not support. If you
let others think for you then they will control your mind. Yet another
organization, The Alabama Poverty Project, also uses clever manipulation of
facts to paint a very distorted picture. You should be very wary of carefully
crafted sob stories. If one has to lie to represent a cause then one does not
have a cause. But it is OK they say, "We are lying for a good
How the Poor Really Live (coming someday). This article provides
instructions for becoming poor if you are not, staying poor if you are, or
escaping to the middle class and beyond. You will find no politically correct
fluff here. I only deal with the unpleasant truth. The plans I give are not
hypothetical - real people have followed the various plans discussed and
achieved stated end result. Whichever plan you choose to follow, the success
rate is very high.
You are invited to visit my main web page at http://www.kennethkuhn.com . There is a variety of
material there - mostly information for my electrical engineering students,
pictures and stories of my cats, and more.