Comment: Socialism or couterfeit socialism?

(See in situ)

Socialism or couterfeit socialism?

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." Pretty simple, right?"

The same can be said about Socialism and people aught to get this straight in their heads because the failure to understand the facts are in measurable ways a transfer of power from those who produce power to those who steal it.

I hope that Hoppe, who I've met, does not claim that involuntary association is "Socialism", which is the same exact mistake made by people who claim that "Capitalism" is involuntary association.

Involuntary association is crime by a more specific label, or by a label with a more specific meaning, but it is crime none-the-less.

If anyone has a beef with the concept of Socialism being a voluntary association then they can take that argument up with the facts reported by Stephen Pearl Andrews in his work The Science of Society written in the middle of the 19th century here in America.

Here are words addressing that understanding:

This definition of Socialism may surprise some into the discovery of the fact that they have been Socialists all along, unawares. Some, on the other hand, who have called themselves Socialists may not at once be inclined to accept the definition. They may not perceive clearly that it is the emancipation of the Individual for which they are laboring, and affirm that it is, on the other hand, the freedom and happiness of the race. They will not, however, deny that it is both; and a very little reflection will show that the freedom and happiness of each individual will be the freedom and happiness of the race, and that the freedom and happiness of the race cannot exist so long as there is any individual of the race who is not happy and free. So the Protestant and the Democrat may not always have a clear intellectual perception of the distinctive principle of their creeds. He may be attached to it from an instinctive sentiment, which he has never thoroughly analyzed, or even from the mere accidents of education and birth.
Protestantism proclaims that the individual has an inalienable right to judge for himself in all matters of conscience. Democracy proclaims that the Individual has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Socialism proclaims that the Individual has an inalienable right to that social position which his powers and natural organization qualify him, and which his tastes incline him to fill, and, consequently, to that constitution or arrangement of the property relations, and other relations of society, whatsoever that may be, which will enable him to enjoy and exercise that right,--the adaptation of social conditions to the wants of each Individual, with all his peculiarities and fluctuations of tasted, instead of the moulding of the Individual into conformity with the rigid requirements of a preconcerted social organization.
If this be a correct statement of the essential nature of Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism, then Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are not actuated by three distinct principles at all. They are simply three partial announcements of one generic principle, which lies beneath all these movements, and of which they are the legitimate outgrowths or developments, modified only by the fact of a different application of the same principle. This great generic principle, which underlies every manifestation of that universal unrest and revolution which is known technically in this age as “Progress,” is nothing more nor less than “THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL.” It is that which is the central idea and vital principle of Democracy; and it is that which is the central idea and vital principle of Socialism.

The arguments that often follow the accurate identification of those words quoted above include the argument that "Socialism" is exemplified by that which was done in Russian under Stalin, etc.

That is exactly what the Legal Criminals want people to do, to confuse reasonable viewpoints with examples of crime and the same confusion works on roughly half of the population of the planet who claim that the current Regime that makes torture, mass murder, and aggressive wars for profit LEGAL, right here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), this Regime right here, is "Capitalist".

If "they" are wrong, then you may want to look in the mirror.

So while half to the population are blaming "Capitalism" the other half are blaming "Socialism" while the actual criminals who profit from their Legal Money Monopoly Power and all the wars that go with it perpetuate their various levels of their creation of The Business Psycho.

If I had the time to discuss this with Hoppe, I would have, but my access to his viewpoint was very brief, and he was current involved in a nebulous scandal at the University where he was then employed.

Andrews, who wrote The Science of Society, a book I found in an obscure Australian library, and I helped get it published on the net, that same Andrews, wrote a book titled The History of Socialism, and if there are no copies available, then that view of that History is lost.

If the World Reserve Currency Power moves to China, and productive Americans are then forced to pay off all that Debt owed by the Criminal Psychopaths who borrowed all that money from China, as they have planned it to go that way, then "Socialism" (Legal Crime) may be coming sooner to a theater near you, and what good will it be to confuse the word with the act then?

If anyone cares to define socialism, please do, and if the definition you create is the same definition that is used to define crime made legal, then why call it socialism, or capitalism, when you are defining crime made legal?

Hoppe may do the subject justice, but my guess is that Hoppe makes the same mistake by all those people who blame the actions of criminals on capitalism.

Where is this capitalism stuff - exactly?

Where is this socialism stuff - exactly?

And if anyone points to a criminal, with or without a badge, and claims that that is either capitalism or socialism, then what else will that person make believe after that fabrication of a false front?