The two terms socialism and communism are synonyms. Communism is a very old term, while the term socialism was first coined in France at the end of the 1830s. Up to the year 1917 both were used indiscriminately. Thus Marx and Engels called the program they published in 1848 the Communist Manifesto, while the parties they organized for the realization of this program called themselves socialist parties.

Before 1917 no distinction was made between the two words. When Lenin called his party “communist,” he meant that it was a party sincerely aiming at the realization of socialism as distinct from the parties that, according to Lenin, merely called themselves socialist parties while in fact they were “social traitors” and “servants” of the bourgeoisie. Lenin never pretended that his Communist party had any other goal than the realization of socialism. The official name he gave to his government was?and is?the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. If somebody says he is opposed to communism, but cherishes socialism, he is no more consistent or logical than a man who declares that he is opposed to murder but cherishes assassination.

— Ludwig von Mises, Economic Freedom & Interventionism, Chapter 21

As if I haven’t been busy enough, I’ve been working on two different books. I’ve mentioned one before: “Why Anarchists Should Vote”. The second one has a working title of “Everybody Is Not In Charge”

So far the book is as rough of a draft as there is. I have like 10 pages of mostly thoughts/brain storming and a few short sentences. The book will be mostly on chaos theory and it will be written in the same style as a Gladwell book. A lot of short stories pieced together within an overarching narrative. 

Anyway, here’s an excerpt (a really rough one at that): 

The great composer of order in society is not any single person or institution. It is an idea. Not just any specific idea, but an idea that can and is embraced by those who participate in society/system. it is only when these notions of individuals come together that society is formed. For it is that idea which sparks movement and sets structure to organization. It is the idea which reveals the path like a lighthouse in the distance.

A lighthouse is not typically a place anyone wants to travel to while a drift on the sea, yet it is vital to anyone who travels by sea. Yet a single lighthouse, like a single idea, is not sufficient to complete a journey. We can not rely on a single lighthouse, it is necessary to have many lighthouses and likewise, many buoys to guide our way. These are all nodes in a system much in the same way ideas are nodes in the fabric of society.


If we were to examine and chart each lighthouse individually on a map, what would we see? We’d be unable to attain direction or location. But once we step back and obtain the position of a second lighthouse, we start to develop a reference. Take another step back; a buoy emerges. Take another; another lighthouse shines. The further out we can see, the more nodes come into view. Soon, the singular points start to plot out a map. This is society, this is the economy, this is the system. This is order from disorder. This is life.

I’m open to all thoughts and suggestions. And if you have stories or anything that you’d like to throw my way, please do so.

Went all out and bought a lot of books for the dude. #drseuss #theberenstains #books #wutangisforthechildren

Went all out and bought a lot of books for the dude. #drseuss #theberenstains #books #wutangisforthechildren

halcyonhours:

A book y’all should read.

Just in case you can’t afford or find a copy to purchase, here’s a link to read it for free from The Library of Economics and Liberty or download it for free from Penn State University, Hazleton

halcyonhours:

A book y’all should read.

Just in case you can’t afford or find a copy to purchase, here’s a link to read it for free from The Library of Economics and Liberty or download it for free from Penn State University, Hazleton

yeahwriters:

thinkingininklings:

Stephen Fry’s take on the e-reader vs. book argument.

THANK YOU

The best thing that can happen to books would be the advancement of digital distribution. 
Right now books cost a lot of money just to produce the actual paper and book. Imagine how many people will read when the price of books comes down when no one is printing and binding books anymore. 
So much wasted cost, gone. Now great writers can make more, companies can make more and consumers can pay less and lose less space to books and the environment also wins. 
Progression in technology, especially the rapid kind, is the best thing that can happen to the environment. 

yeahwriters:

thinkingininklings:

Stephen Fry’s take on the e-reader vs. book argument.

THANK YOU

The best thing that can happen to books would be the advancement of digital distribution. 

Right now books cost a lot of money just to produce the actual paper and book. Imagine how many people will read when the price of books comes down when no one is printing and binding books anymore. 

So much wasted cost, gone. Now great writers can make more, companies can make more and consumers can pay less and lose less space to books and the environment also wins. 

Progression in technology, especially the rapid kind, is the best thing that can happen to the environment. 

(via anarcho-alowisney)

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. — Thomas Paine, The Writings of Thomas Paine, Vol. I, XII.: Thoughts On Defensive War.1 (1774-1779)

Have you ever read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?

Did it change your political beliefs? Did it flip your world view upside down and inside out?

The problem of empire-building is essentially mystical. It must somehow foster the impression that a man is great in the degree that his nation is great; that a German as such is superior to a Belgian as such; an Englishman, to an Irishman; an American, to a Mexican: merely because the first-named countries are in each case more powerful than their comparatives. And people who have no individual stature whatever are willing to accept this poisonous nonsense because it gives them a sense of importance without the trouble of any personal effort. —  Felix Morley, Freedom and Federalism, 1959
The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. Francesco Sforza, though being martial, from a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding the hardships and troubles of arms, from dukes became private persons. For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on. —  Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince, 1513