Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Socialism is an arrogant theism without God, and the reason why socialism is wrong

* This is actually published on 28th of June, 2012

The situation that Einstein became popular is just a coincidence. Just his existence and the demand at the contemporary time period matched with each other. Well, we cannot control over the "luck" at the time, place, and occasion we are born. This is one of socialists' characteristics I cannot trust: Socialists seem to attempt to control "luck" as though they were God. That's why socialism is called as the theism without God or with the alternative God as the mechanism of human-beings. I found socialism is very arrogant ideology more than any other religion.

* Speaking of what capitalism is, and Hegelian historical point of view:

The word "capitalism" is what socialists call as an antonym of socialism. There is no such a thing like capitalism: There can be what we call as Comprehensive Liberalism (Classical Liberalism). Dr. Ron Paul says "The system socalled capitalism has never been established yet".

I strongly disagree with Hegelian historical perspective (Social Conflict theory) which socialists follow. I do not see individuals' perspective and community structure dramatically change at a certain point to "evolve". I would say individuals' perspective and community structure change "gradually", and all of them work as "functionally" at the optimum level the technology available offers. I really detest that socialists always expect our future must always become better. If we adapt such a perspective, we eventually need to be disappointed by our past and present. In addition, I hate socialists for ranting on "society" the abstract metaphysics we cannot see and even we cannot access whether or not it exists! Their call on society kills individualism and introduces totalitarianism! I hate socialism!

* The reason why socialism fails, and is detested:

I also researched about non-authoritarian socialism such as syndicalism, social-democracy, Neo-Marxism, etc. But, I am still not convinced by socialism at all. The common failures of all kinds of socialism are (1) it fails to mention the fact that natural resource is limited, and (2) it tends to think human-beings are genuine and able to cohabit without any hesitation. (1) indicates that, if we try to attempt to accomplish the equal distribution and providing the basic standard of living for all, the resource will run out eventually. In order to avoid this situation, the population has to be declined at the feasible level, all individuals have to strive to obtain the resource in the severe competition, and/or someone (An individual or a government) or social norm (Tradition, Principle, etc) has to enforce the distribution (The distribution can be either unequal or makes everyone equally poor though). This results in the situation that what socialists try to accomplish is impossible to achieve. (2) indicates that socialists always think human-beings can become genuine and cohabitabe in peace after the battle between two classes ends. This is way too optimistic perspective. It fails to demonstrate how we can differentiate the reward and the punishment for individual. Someone can produce more than others, someone can be more generous than others, someone can be wicked but may be able to bring a productive consequence, someone can bear too many children beyond their responsibility available, and someone can violate liberty of others. We then need a fair judgement to distribute the reward and the punishment. Furthermore, I really detest the word of "fellow men" because it infers altruism. The notion of fellow men is very dangerous because it encourages homogeneity, cooperation (Dangerous if excess), and solid social norm. We only need a minimum right for all, carelessness about what all individuals think, believe, and behave, and some public goods and aids which only applies as much as these individuals previously invested to and as long as all individuals agree by means of their egoistic interest meets with the service provided.

Well, I think neither I am particularly superior to majority nor I belong to an elite cohort of human-beings. Nonetheless, I feel really awkward to be unconditionally looked after by someone I am not related, and I despise the community structure which either enforce or suggest us to unconditionally spend to those whom we are not related and those whom we despise so much. Only whom I want to care are myself and my family (related family members, my significant other, and those almost like my family). I want all people in this globe to be emancipated to become rationally egoistic individuals. Then, our wealth (not only monetary but also non-physical those who we inherit through family and culture) will not be sacked by a propaganda motivated by a superstitious abstract terminology such as society, public, and nation! We always want to make sure that we spend for those we can see and those which are objectively and explicitly valued as a fair exchange of values.

No comments: