Some of us were blessed to be leftists/Marxists their whole lives, but others of us had our days as the CHUD/liberal that we all now enjoy laughing at. So here's a glance into my middle-late days of this cringe, material I feared had been lost forever until fixing my old laptop.

This first one is my personal favorite, and is very ripe to be made into copypasta. This had to have been genuine at the time of writing it, which is something I will have to live with for the rest of my life. So please share in my shame

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I believe the reason I don't remember writing it is because even more hilariously, I think my mother sent it to me after we had talked about how the liberals at this radical left college would try to change me, dislike me, or grade me unfairly for my beliefs. Further proof lies in the original word doc having the entire thing in bold print lmao. I'm honestly not sure if that's less or more cringy than having written it, but regardless;

"A lot of you tout yourselves as superior and more balanced and reasonable. Yet, any opposing opinion you scoff at. You want respect in your own opinion? Start respecting the opposite. Intelligence is not in opinion, but in your ability to respect other opinions, understand their stance, and be able to respectively disagree. None of you are able to do so. What I've noticed here at COLLEGE_NAME and generally elsewhere is a lack of a key piece of intelligence. Recognizing opposition arguments and understanding the reasoning behind them allows you to debate them more effectively and reason them to your own point of view with a higher rate of success. This is a rare trait, and will prove useful in a political fashion, especially when knowing how to use it."

Holy shit lmao.

"The fundamental, defining difference between republican and liberal ideals is that republicans hold the tyranny of the few as most dangerous, while liberals hold the same against tyranny of the many."

I was half right, liberals do indeed fear "tyranny" of the many lol...

"While not as radical as the civil war, and definitely not as forced, the New Deal is also a great example of radical change that picked up after the system's mistakes. Although it can be argued that the war bolstered consumer confidence at the time which in itself lifted the US back up, its hard to dispute that the New Deal had a large impact on the recovery and revitalization of America on a global scale. The question is, what happens to lead us constantly back down the path to where we need radical change? Simply put, we make the mistake of putting the same broken system back into place. After the civil war, instead of taking the structural issues that resulted in the civil war in the first place, such as all or nothing politics and under-representation of both citizens and states, the union placed almost the exact same system back into power, only this time with an amendment to abolish slavery. In the case of the New Deal, the system managed to easily work around the new changes, and soon the New Deal programs themselves became proponents of the broken system. The only true solution that can finally stop this trend, this never-ending American policy pendulum with constant need of radical rescue is to remember that radical rescue has to be followed by radical reform or radical restructuring. We cannot continue to fall back on the old system if it is proven to be continually repeating the cycle. In the modern world we cannot afford these large mistakes."

Oooh hints of baby-radicalization. I then went on to advocate for a libertarian fix for the system later in the paper 😬

Which is a great transition into another quote from my notes:

"Why should Californians be able to dictate what is best for STATE_Xers? Or Floridians? The system needs a more capitalistic approach, where states make laws to attract and/or detract certain breeds of the populations and businesses. California wants to ban all guns? So be it. STATE_X on the other hand could decide to legalize all guns. You would see a population shift, of pro-gun populations shifting to STATE_X and of anti-gun populations shifting to California. You would see the vice-verca effect with those living in the states, if they don't agree with the policy, they move. This will create a much more homogenous population per state, leading to more effective laws, representation, and leadership per state. Citizens should be able to choose the state they will reside in based on where they stand on certain political issues, and if they don't agree, then they find a state that is more accepting of their idealism. This will inevitably lead to a much happier population, as all parties will be satisfied. Not to mention, it will be a very useful way to experiment with new political theory and also to see the effects of laws firsthand, using direct comparison between states."

And finally, the crown jewel, a quick cringe ridden smackdown in my notes on Marx for an intro poly sci class:

"Marx assumes psychology of human beings does not require family or private property. His entire theory lays on an unstable base, and is in itself quite naïve. It is not possible to move towards communism in today's established world anyway, as human psychology has evolved in a capitalist way, whether we are truly wired that way at birth or not. Looking at Freudian psychology shows that Marx's world cannot happen.

• Counter to counter – we are merely conditioned to believe this is human nature, you must be reconditioned to believe in Marx's human nature (the 'true' human nature)
• Counter to the counter of the counter – Again basing his theory on psychological assumptions that have no proof behind them, much like Schrodinger's box logic, since we do not know whats in the box, we can say anything is true. This is extremely naïve however.
• TLDR: Marx is incredibly naïve when looking at human thought and nature, where he gets his understanding of psychology is unknown. Human beings are not perfect, and their psychology dictates their personal needs above others as a natural quality, as you have only a single consciousness, not a combined consciousness.
• TTLDR: Marx's theory lies on an unstable base of psychological theory which conflicts 99 percent of all psychological science today.

The USSR (a failure) was not communism because true communism is not possible, it is against human nature and psychology."

I will continue digging for hilarious material, and will continue to share them if people like this.