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???

Here is an excellent site with a number of must read articles:  Socialism does not Work

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 https://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.