Only Connected Communists Will Avoid Toiling in the Fields
I'm going to leave this right here for all you idiot socialist, democrat, and communist college students and professors who think you're going to be given a cushy government job, when in reality those jobs only go to the connected cronies.
Communists and their cousins, SJWs, seem to forget the history of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc: when they came to power the first ones to be purged were the useful idiots.
How dare you question the wisdom of our glorious leaders, comrade! This deviationism will not be tolerated! It is well established that toiling in the fields and using one's hands is a highly sought role in establishing a proletariat paradise. It is only because of petty bourgeois propaganda and meddling foreign interventionists that such jobs are despised in favor of far less glorious office work, necessitating our program of collective labor and quotas. Our selfless leaders sacrifice by working these office jobs that no one would work if they weren't brainwashed by greedy capitalist swine, who fill their heads with desires of excessive wealth.
"...the Socialist party, as I shall try to show you, [favors] only the office holder. At least, those who are not office holders will, under Socialism, have the hardest kind of a time.”
That was in 1903, Socialist party and Democratic party are synonymous now.
Further if work is available:
First, what is the best the socialists, in their writings, can offer us? What do the most optimistic of them say? That our subsistence will be guaranteed, while we work; that some of us, the best of us, may earn a surplus above what is actually necessary for our subsistence; and that surplus, like a good child, we may "keep to spend." We may not use it to better our condition, we may not, if a fisherman, buy another boat with it, if a farmer, another field ; we may not invest it, or use it productively ; but we can spend it like the good child, on candy — on something we consume, or waste it, or throw it away.
Could not the African slave do as much? In fact, is not this whole position exactly that of the ... slave? He, too, was guaranteed his sustenance; he, too, was allowed to keep and spend the extra money he made by working overtime ; but he was not allowed to better his condition, to engage in trade, to invest it, to change his lot in life. Precisely what makes a slave is that he is allowed no use of productive capital to make wealth on his own account. The only difference is that under socialism, I may not be compelled to labor (I don't even know as to that — socialists differ on the point), actually compelled, by the lash, or any other force than hunger. And the only other difference is that the ... slave was under the orders of one man, while the subject of socialism will be under the orders of a committee of ward heelers. You will say, the slave could not choose his master, tut we shall elect the ward politician. So we do now. Will that help much ? Suppose the man with a grievance didn't vote for him ? --“Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson
And there is really nothing in the history of socialism to dispute that assessment. Any surplus that the unconnected earn cannot be spent to better himself or collected to build capital to improve his lot. Any surplus not spent on "candy" is at risk of redistribution, usually from the individual to the party crony.
when the real debt bill comes due, the aftermath is going to leave anyone not in the "in crowd" the option of being their slave for any wish or desire they have or be discarded the minute day they cant hack it at back breaking labor.
20 somethings today too proud to do manual labor or work fast food today may have wished for jobs like that if the global debt really implodes things, which is damn likely.
5 comments:
Even the Bush & Clinton family is better looking than them. Oh, I bet you're excited about the new Michael Moore movie too, ha.
Communists and their cousins, SJWs, seem to forget the history of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc: when they came to power the first ones to be purged were the useful idiots.
How dare you question the wisdom of our glorious leaders, comrade! This deviationism will not be tolerated! It is well established that toiling in the fields and using one's hands is a highly sought role in establishing a proletariat paradise. It is only because of petty bourgeois propaganda and meddling foreign interventionists that such jobs are despised in favor of far less glorious office work, necessitating our program of collective labor and quotas. Our selfless leaders sacrifice by working these office jobs that no one would work if they weren't brainwashed by greedy capitalist swine, who fill their heads with desires of excessive wealth.
"...the Socialist party, as I shall try to show you, [favors] only the office holder. At least, those who are not office holders will, under Socialism, have the hardest kind of a time.”
That was in 1903, Socialist party and Democratic party are synonymous now.
Further if work is available:
First, what is the best the socialists, in their writings, can offer us? What do the most optimistic of them say? That our subsistence will be guaranteed, while we work; that some of us, the best of us, may earn a surplus above what is actually necessary for our subsistence; and that surplus, like a good child, we may "keep to spend." We may not use it to better our condition, we may not, if a fisherman, buy another boat with it, if a farmer, another field ; we may not invest it, or use it productively ; but we can spend it like the good child, on candy — on something we consume, or waste it, or throw it away.
Could not the African slave do as much? In fact, is not this whole position exactly that of the ... slave? He, too, was guaranteed his sustenance; he, too, was allowed to keep and spend the extra money he made by working overtime ; but he was not allowed to better his condition, to engage in trade, to invest it, to change his lot in life. Precisely what makes a slave is that he is allowed no use of productive capital to make wealth on his own account. The only difference is that under socialism, I may not be compelled to labor (I don't even know as to that — socialists differ on the point), actually compelled, by the lash, or any other force than hunger. And the only other difference is that the ... slave was under the orders of one man, while the subject of socialism will be under the orders of a committee of ward heelers. You will say, the slave could not choose his master, tut we shall elect the ward politician. So we do now. Will that help much ? Suppose the man with a grievance didn't vote for him ?
--“Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson
And there is really nothing in the history of socialism to dispute that assessment. Any surplus that the unconnected earn cannot be spent to better himself or collected to build capital to improve his lot. Any surplus not spent on "candy" is at risk of redistribution, usually from the individual to the party crony.
when the real debt bill comes due, the aftermath is going to leave anyone not in the "in crowd" the option of being their slave for any wish or desire they have or be discarded the minute day they cant hack it at back breaking labor.
20 somethings today too proud to do manual labor or work fast food today may have wished for jobs like that if the global debt really implodes things, which is damn likely.
Post a Comment