Socialism

In a lot of ways, the way people talk about Socialism today sounds like an attempt to say “I want to take what you have” without the guilt associated with theft – because it’s corporate and pits membership in social classes against each other.

“I do not have it, and I need it” elicits natural empathy.

“You have it” sounds like envy.

“I do not have it, and I need it, and you have it” sounds like a declaration of intent.

“I do not have it, and I need it, and you have it, give it to me” is a threat.

“We do not have it, give it to us” is a threat. It’s manipulation. It’s a declaration that you do not deserve it, have not earned it, will not earn it, have no interest in earning it… but because it’s corporate, it’s supposed to sound virtuous and less evil than a request for charity.

And let’s be clear, it’s not a request for charity. It’s a demand for compliance, especially when backed by power… which is ironic, because the whole reason the demand has to be taken seriously is because of the ascendance to power of those who demand.

But that’s contradictory: if you have power, then you don’t have the need for “it” that you used to have, because you have power. Now you’re just taking from others to satisfy the need. “Serve the many,” is the cry, pointing back to the request for empathy…

If the request isn’t a demand (“Please, could we have something you have?”)… that’s fine. That’s a request for charity. That’s not even brazen. We all love our children, we all live in a world that has no real regard for us, to some degree we have to live together in a community.

By the way, a request for charity is not “socialism.” This is rational self-interest in all regards: the request is rational self-interest, and the fulfillment is rational self-interest. Even a denial is rational self-interest, even if we might not agree that it’s the best path forward. People who claim that any corporate actions are “socialism” are mistaken at best, and outright liars at worst.

But if you demand something (“It should belong to us, not you”) is fulfilled without being followed by commensurate compensation, you’re simply stealing from someone else. Calling it “socialism” may even be true, but that doesn’t change its nature.

To me, socialism is fine… if it’s actually spontaneous and agreed to by all. A group of people deciding to do something for themselves, corporately, has no negative connotations for me.

But to have socialism applied from outside… that’s when I say that those Socialists are simply thieves using branding to make themselves seem more appealing for others. And if you want Socialists in power without getting out and doing the work yourself… you’re complicit in their evil. You’re just hoping that a lack of pity for the victims you want to create makes it “okay.”

Don’t be evil.

You want to be a socialist? Be my guest. Shoot, go for communism if you want; I won’t mind… as long as you keep your filthy hands off of what belongs to others. Saying “but it should belong to us” isn’t enough. If you want it to belong to the corporate “you,” feel free to make it. Then it will belong to you and you can share it however you like… just make sure you really mean it, and share it with everyone, including the people who you dislike and who disagree with you. Otherwise you’re just as “evil” as the people you’d rather steal from.

1 thought on “Socialism”

  1. Probably just my lower comprehension skills but we danced a little before we got to the side taken via a truth table. Truth table seems reasonable but i don’t know if possible given involuntary taxes. To complete and agree with truth table i would throw in immigration else where too.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.