Saturday, August 31, 2013

This One's For You, Vlad!

-
One of my readers got upset the other day when I linked an article that contained some worthwhile information, but also had a paragraph of childish, selfish, hate-filled, anti-capitalism and pro-communist bull sh_t. I fully understand his concern. It got me to thinking about how I would describe communism in a nutshell. The average proponent of communism HAS NEVER LIVED UNDER IT, and thus is ignorant of how it really plays out, and of the horrors that it perpetrates on the people who are forced to live under it. Knowing that American schools mostly turn out idiots these days, I knew it had to be dumbed-down for many of those under 40 to be able to understand (not that they're actually READING anything anyway). As a result, I came up with the definition of communism below:

"Communism - an oppressive, atheistic form of government proposed by jealous, small-minded people who are too lazy to work for a living, and are too cowardly to do their own stealing."


It's a somewhat juvenile definition, but remember that I wanted to make it understandable to those educated in the last quarter-century or so. © 2013
-

3 comments:

Sunnybrook Farm said...

It is an idea that doesn't work but is very persistent. Kind of like having square wheels on something, it takes a lot of extra work to get minimum results.

Gorges Smythe said...

Like all forms of socialism, SF, it would require a "religious" dedication to the cause, and even Christian utopian societies never work out.

Michael Silvius said...

Two Chickens:

A dialog between two comrades

- If you had 2 houses, would you donate one for the revolution?
= Yes of course, the other eagerly responds.

- And if you had two luxury cars, would you donate one for the revolution
= Absolutely, of course responds the militant

- and if you had a million bucks would you donate half for the cause of the revolution?
= I most certainly would, the second proudly responds

- And if you had two chickens, would you give one up for the revolution?
= NO, I WOULD NOT, responded the comrade

- But why? if you have two houses, you'd give one up,
- and if you had two cars you would as well and 500K thou $ if you had a million,
- why not one of your chickens?

= DAM IT, BECAUSE THE TWO CHICKENS I DO ACTUALLY HAVE.

Moral of the story being it is always easy to give away someone else's property and labor.