World Socialism Will Ultimately Prevail over Capitalism and Individual LIberty

[Rodion Romanovich]

It is my opinion that individual liberty and true capitalism will be overrun by socialist autocracy, and that the people are powerless to stop it. It is inevitable.

If the state becomes totalitarian it seldom tends to keep socialism values of equal rights to all and good living standards and social security for all. Rather, totalitarianism is a system that promotes something similar to the differences in wealth of capitalism, only that the way the money is distributed is different from a free market. But on the other hand we've never had a free market either and no country has it today - much of distribution of wealth in European countries too is ruled by friendship and stuff going on behind the scenes. For example how many missions are given to friends of the rulers at a higher production cost rather than being given to other companies who happen to be less good friends of the rulers etc. It's for instance funny with all these things when billions of tax payer money is spent on finding a slogan or similar, I believe that exists in all European and American countries. Or when some building, design or architecture mission is given to someone, then billions are spent on repairing the first version of the work after the first version was clearly not working as it should. Free market is an utopia that has never existed and probably never will. Only time such freedom has ever existed was before civilization (which was before homo sapiens during homo erectus), and quite conveniently at that time there was also the best ever social security. Social security can never be 100% and free market can never be 100%, but both can be 99% at the same time if people would try to strive for both rather than for unrealistic utopias.

I have come to the realization that the values of the United States have died in the cradle. Our infant idealism of the individual as sovereign and people's power to limit government died a very very long time ago.

We are no longer a collection of sovereign states, united for the common good by a federal government of limited specifically written powers. The concept of the sovereign state is no more. America is nothing more than a single nation with 50 administrative regions, and nothing more. The power of the federal government has completely eclipsed "those powers left to the States". The "States" are nothing more than geographically determined divisions of local administration.

The same would be true for most unions. The same is on the way of happening in the EU - which would be a disaster, recreating the late Roman Empire, which as we all know was a pretty horrible place. Early Rome has some virtues worth striving for, but the late roman empire is a horrible thing we should never create again. One really bad thing about having a centralized power very far from the home of most is that there's really no way of launching a successful rebellion in the case of a madman gaining power and using a coup or hidden means of acquiring totalitarian power. If the government that has most of the power lives close to your own house you can go and kill them if they go nuts and do coups, but if they're moved to Brussels then there's little possibility of gaining freedom in the case of a constitutional disaster such as a madman getting totalitarian power. That's why both EU and the USA should be careful and be preserving the local power and keeping the power of the central institutions limited, preferably as limited as possible.

That said, I have come to the conclusion that this is inevitable across the world. There will continue to be brief moments of liberty in pockets of the world, and populist libertarians will continue to sound their cries so long as free mediums of speech are available.

One reason why this seems inevitable is that the crucial steps towards totalitarian rule are steps that don't immediately look like steps towards totalitarian rule. The increasing of central EU power is a step towards totalitarian rule and restriction of liberty of the individual, but who would make a rebellion against a slow, gradual constitutional change? When finally something is done that is illegal - a coup - the people working against liberty have already received too much power to be able to stop easily. We should perhaps be ready to launch rebellions in response merely to constitutional changes, rather than waiting for actual coups, if we want to avoid disasters (disasters both for ourselves and outsiders) such as communism and nazism from happening again.

Freedom and capitalism lead to economic propserity. This prosperity leads to both complacency and a sense of entitlement in the masses. They become sedated and demand greater benefit for reduced effort. As this occurs in capitalism, an economic disparity occurs where the selfish ignorant complacent entitled masses begin to engage in less and less work. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the educated driven visionary entrepreneurs achieve great economic success. The safe and complacent masses at the bottom then feel jealousy and entitlement towards the earnings of the fewer successful risk-takers. They pressure legislators to give them greater and greater benefits and the entrepreneurs are left with less and less. The middle class, meanwhile, are just as complacent and don't give a damn what the hell is going on. The politicians, interested only in their personal benefit, appeal to the lowest common denomitors and steal from the wealthy to give to the self entitled masses.

I agree that classes turning against each other is seldom as much a deliberate action from rulers, as it is an inevitable development. But remember that the "jealousy" of the poor towards the rich isn't entirely unfounded in modern society. One of the main methods of getting rich is by buying and selling stock - hardly anything that helps society because you produce neither products nor services for others - but the stock market is very unpredictable and it's less about skills than about luck, or having a large amount of money when you start buying and selling, and/or the influence that allows you to buy/sell before the average customers so you can take more advantage of the fluctuation in the stocks. Jealousy towards those who make benefits from stock and interest of money inherited from their parents without them doing any real work for the common good at all is justified. Jealousy towards a hard-working medic, engineer, author, actor etc. is not. The poor tend to see the successful stockbrokers, the rich tend to look at the medics and engineers etc., unless they're stockbrokers in which case they're glad the society form temporarily happens to favor people in their line of work without caring about the consequences for society of that. The jealousy doesn't only lie in laziness, it lies in unpredictability and randomness. The best way of getting motivation for work is belief that you can affect your future by choosing how to act. It's a fact that a decent job such as medic, engineer or lawyer doesn't make you part of the richest elite by working hard - the economists, stockbrokers, investors and people who were born by rich parents get richest.

Capitalism will remain in highly regulated form.

With my definition, socialism as seen in for instance many European countries are a form of capitalism, not a rival ideology. All societies since the invention or money have been capitalistic societies at the bottom, since they've been based on economical success, whether regulated or not.

Violence as a control measure is a thing of the past. We will socailly evolve towards this end because natural selection has been disrupted to allow the dregs and waste of the world to overpower the survivors and liberty loving capitalists among us.

Notice that economical success hasn't been proportional to amount of work, to intelligence, to good organizational ability, or just and ethical behavior. It has been based on what was most economically profitable, whether that required strength or not. An common pattern already in the earliest civilizations: A weak, stupid man with rich parents buys 10 slaves who cuts out gold from a mine for him. He gets richer than a farmer who is strong, intelligent and caring for his family. The farmer has to pay taxes because the influence of people like the first one causes tax raises and similar. At the end the slave-owner gold miner buys prositutes and wives and gets ten children, while the farmer is inprisoned for theft when he tries to steal food for his family after the tyrannic taxes made them nearly starve. Economical profit is not proportional to how strong or good human being you are. That's why most forms of capitalism since the beginning of civilization have worked so badly.

Free speech will become more and more regulated and conviluteed to meet the demands of the shallow masses and political elite. Land rights are taken away. Guns are taken away. The state becomes all powerful and led by the same cycle of "democratically elected" turds from the list of nepotism-apointed options provided to us.

And any resistance will be met with manipulation, distortion, and isolation.

This sounds like a typical conspiracy theory to me. Since we live in a capitalism it's far more likely for rich people to get influential and affect politics, and rich people tend to favor capitalism more than socialism. They also tend to favor unjustly regulated forms of capitalism more than normal capitalism or socialism. With unjustly regulated forms of capitalism I'm referring to the above system where friends of the rulers get missions to construct things etc. Please show some proof of your alleged "socialist world conspiracy". Your current ruler is for instance conservative, not left wing or middle.

Thus, we are doomed to be ruled over by a very few elite who manipulate the masses like the dogs and scum that humanity ultimately is.

Isn't the point of the capitalism you're advocating that the elite should rule the masses? I assume what you're really meaning is that a group will be an elite measured in society terms, while as humans being scum? That's nothing unique but something that has existed since the dawn of civilization. There have been exceptions local in time and space, and studying those suggests that it's very well possible to spread liberty, freedom and justice all over the world or at the very least create an isolated Eden of such virtues that can remain over a long time.

And it has already begun. The United States of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin has been destroyed. And so the transition into the New American State has already occurred before we realized it.

But is is inevitable the world over. It isn't bad, good, or indifferent. It's just the way it is. And I'm done fighting for a cause that cannot win. I will continue to serve my community. I will continue to care for my fellow man. And I will continue to believe in the ideals of individual liberty so long as I live. But humanity cannot sustain that which it is incapable of.

What exactly is it you're saying has changed to the worse recently? You seem to be confusing the regulation of capitalism with totalitarianism and also with socialism. You also seem to be claiming you've once had economical liberty and free market and that it's being taken away from you - the fact is you've never had any free market. Secondly, your current rulers are conservative, not socialists. Thirdly, the theoretical unregulated capitalism has never existed and if it would it wouldn't favor strong and ethical human beings, but whatever happens to be most economically benefitial at a certain time. Fourthly, capitalism in theory isn't the same as capitalism in practise, because capitalism in practise involves regulation of the market, regulating it based on friendships behind the scenes, and in benefit of those who happened to already be rich.