Ariel

Well, I agree. There may be correlation but I don't think there is causation. There's nothing altruistic in allowing the government to take away (or steal) resources from people and then redistribute them according to some criteria which may not be very clear. As I told you, I think the main emotions behind socialism is envy towards those who have attained wealth and the feeling of justice in the redistribution of wealth. I'm not saying that all Jewish people have the same mind-set. I'm saying that the socialist theory originated from a Jewish mind and in saying this I mean that it has incorporated in it a very international imprint. In fact this is the main difference between communist countries and nazi-fascist countries: nationalism and racism. Do you really think that the socialist theory could have originated from a Romanian mind-set or a German mind-set or even a French mind-set as they are heavily nationalistic? I believe not. In fact, nationalism is a very important element that can turn the outcome of the application of socialism. Look at what Israel has turned into when they started putting the nationalistic element into their socialist country. Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. I say that communism is the heroin of the masses: it materially impoverishes you, it starves you and when you are hooked to it you just can't let it go. I agree. Most of us are cowards. But some are brave enough to sacrifice their lives in order to fight the injustice of such a system. For example in Eastern Europe we had outlaws called haiduci which attacked the rich oppressors. They were the equivalent of Robin Hood. Some of them were captured and executed but there were always people that were brave enough to risk their lives and fight the unjust. They became almost legendary and remind us that it's better to risk dying for freedom than to live as a slave and see your country and your people brought to its knees. You are right. Here in Italy where I live they automatically tax your work each month and you can't do anything about it. Taxes are really high and the economy is going to shit as productivity is hampered and competence isn't really valued as much as it should be. An engineer at the beginning of his career and for many years can earn almost as much as a street-sweeper. It would be outrageous for Americans a thing like this but Italians have acquired the mind-set of slaves from so many years of simile socialism. I'm only happy that I don't have student debt after finishing my bachelor's degree.

If you want to be altruistic because you have a lot of resources then you shouldn't trust the government of distributing them, you should create your own philanthropic association like Bill Gates did. It would certainly be more effective at helping people than the government. As you can see being altruistic has nothing to do with socialism. I think the main emotion involved in socialism as it has been put forth in the last century is envy and the feeling of justice for the poor, but in fact exactly the opposite occurs as poor people are the ones that suffer most from the consequences of socialism. I know it because I grew up in post-socialist Romania. It is difficult to determine the link between one's ancestors, his philosophy of life and the outcome on one's personal wealth during his life, but I think I can safely say that there is a link between the theory of socialism and Marx's Jewish origins as I have proven to you that his famous quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is in fact derived from the Old Testament based on the Tanakh. I am not anti-semitic, I am simply stating my thoughts and trying to link them to facts. If you can't openly debate with someone without throwing accusations like "You're a racist/anti-semite/nazi/white nationalist/..." and think you can simply discredit and discharge argumentation like that then you are not objective and undemocratic. Actually my political views aren't fixed and I really think that the form of government most appropriate in one case depends on the nature of the society and on the individuals that form it. Yes. Actually we owe the development of modern western society to three main things: the ancient Greeks, the Roman Empire and the Jewish mind. They gave us democracy, Christianity and the basic human rights.

What on earth can justify in an individual's mind someone that comes to your door and takes away your stuff and says that they will soon distribute it to each according to their needs? The only thing that can justify this in your mind is that you can think of somebody else that actually has taken from him more resources than you and that you get more than you give so that you are better off. Socialism can only be justified in a poor man's mind. And if you are poor then probably you have a poor mind also. Egoism and altruism have little or nothing to do with this process. You don't let the government come and take away your stuff because you care about others. Maybe that's what some think in the beginning but it soon fades away. You let them do it because you think that everybody else is contributing at least as you or more. I think it's a purely rational thing. The unity you are talking about is the one imposed by the government. Nationalism is actually a thing despised by communists. And if you come to think of it, communism was devised by a Jewish mind and they don't like nations either. This is a thing that should be analysed in a deeper way: the relation between nationalism and communism. If you have a nationalised socialism then what you get is actually Nazism. Actually socialism may work in a situation where you have an ideal government that is able to take decisions that are better than the decisions taken by individuals. That is what is mentioned in the Bible in the Apostles' Acts 4:32-35, because God is actually an intelligence that can take decisions far better than those of single individuals. Since communists actually despise the idea of God, their government is eventually going to fail as more and more inefficiencies are accumulated through the years.

I've just started reading Atlas Shrugged a bunch of weeks ago but the arguments that Ayn writes about have always been of my concern. I really don't believe that egoism leads to socialism, not directly. What leads to socialism is the unity amongst the poor and those in need that do not have the ability to earn themselves a living at the height of their needs or their expectations. Socialism can only occur in a society that is united. It can never succeed in a society that is divided by social differences as the production seized by the State cannot satisfy all the different needs of the different social groups inside the country and as so a single political party will not have enough numbers to govern by itself. The problem with socialism is in the long run as inefficiencies start building up in production and in consumption, there are no incentives to develop and grow without entrepreneurship and eventually it all collapses in extreme poverty as it always happened with socialist countries.