Writings Against
Socialism
May 14, 2020
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
producers.
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?
Definition of
socialism: Greed is
lusting to get for free what someone else had to work
for.
Isn't 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 not sustainable.
Socialist fairness: The harder you work the more you owe the
state. The less you work the more the state owes
you.
The big 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???
Socialist 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 come.
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
answer.
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' types.
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.
3. What 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.
4. 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.
5. If 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 socialism.
An
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 socialism.
A Fifty 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 email.
Quote by
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.
The Compassionate 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
original: http://hughs-kojak.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-to-catch-wild-pig.html
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 the problem.
Quote from 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 States.
Quote from Dr.
Adrian Pierce Rogers The truth about
socialism.
Ponder
This This is a question I have about
socking it to the rich. A lot of us might starve to death
without them.
Krushchev
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 happening.
What is
Greed? A quick thought suitable for
posting on a wall that answers the question.
Government Job 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 why.
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 way.
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 Think
page.
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
cause."
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.
Email contact
information
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.