Skip to main content

The Socialist Ideal: A Testimony

The ideal of the socialist is such that when we talk, we say nothing new or offensive, ideally nothing at all, and we keep a strict tally of our syllables and decibels to ensure that there’s sufficient space for the others. 


When we work, we continue only what has already been done, never doing more than we're instructed, and we do it for free without any byproducts or useful product for that matter. 

When we travel, we do it between work and home, with as little spontaneity and style as possible, preferably by bicycle or by foot, or most ideally not at all, so as to avoid offending the planet or encountering another person, who is otherwise known as a victim. 

When we exercise or study, we do it for the benefit of everybody, not for ourselves, and when this serves us an advantage, we offset it by severing a limb, by undergoing a lobotomy, or by pretending to be no different. 

When we compete, we declare everybody a winner, but nobody wins, so we usually avoid competition altogether because it’s uneventful. 

When we save, or under-consume, we redistribute the total of it to erase the excess and start over. 

When we innovate, we remind the innovator that he has nothing to gain from his toil, that his greed is the seed of all evil. 

When we meet people, we select the first person we encounter, so as to avoid offending others who might feel excluded. This is, of course, an anomaly, as most times we just keep our heads down and go about our own business. 

When we make plans, we enter a lottery to randomize the people and the venue, but most plans are already prepared for us, and by now most places and people are identical, so it's really all the same. 

When tomorrow finally arrives, we pretend as if it were yesterday, and it mostly feels the same anyway. 

For the most part, we do as we’re scheduled and we avoid stepping outside of our lanes and leaving our rooms. 

The socialist doesn’t really enjoy change, unless it takes the form of syphoning all of the thrill, creativity and uniqueness out of life. 

After all, how could any of it justify the risk or the victims? 

It's really the least we can do. 

And we're all fine here, waiting until we achieve the palatable death.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi