Rejecting Socialism


Rejecting Socialism

by Mustang

There is a gulf of separation between theoretical socialism and its practical realities —something that socialists are well aware of, and why they intentionally deceive others about this peculiar ideology.  One important overarching reality of socialism is that its success requires compulsory adherence to the will of the state that wields it. 

One might argue that socialism opposes human nature, and I think this is true, but experience tells us that it is nevertheless possible to convince human beings to relinquish their natural instincts to the demands of the state —particularly if individuals are duped into accepting socialist theory over socialist reality, and where the state is willing to use coercive methods against its citizens to assert and maintain totalitarian power. 

By writing “coercive methods,” I mean to suggest numerous insidious strategies beyond holding a gun to a citizen’s head.  Most thinking humans will recognize coercion as the gateway to an unnatural state; anyone who is willing to give up his or her unassailable rights probably doesn’t deserve them in the first place.

Socialism is complex, however.  What makes it complicated are its several (actually, too many) and competing theoretical ideologies.  These include Utopianism, Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Leftist Communism, Autonomism,  Anarchism, socialist democracy, democratic socialism, liberal socialism, ethical socialism, libertarian socialism, religious, regional, and eco-socialism … and it goes on from there.

One may recall the case of Winston Smith, who frustrated by state oppression and rigid control —even to the extent of prohibiting individualism in thought or expression, sought to break away from his socialist masters.  He soon realized that the socialist state can never allow even one citizen to achieve independent thought.  At one time, George Orwell was a committed socialist, whose work Nineteen-Eighty-Four reflected his realization that socialist reality was a stark betrayal of its theory.  Orwell’s conclusion was that mankind must never trust any state to deliver a just society.

If this is true, then why should anyone living in Utopia wish to change from a system that values individuality —indeed, one in which society thrives on our natural instincts— to live within a society controlled by the state, where the only rewards come from group think, and where success economic is only achieved through carefully measured doses of state welfare? 

In 1908, writer Jack London wrote the earliest of dystopian fiction novels; he titled it The Iron Heel.  The background for London’s book is set in San Francisco and Sonoma County.  He chronicles an oligarchic power structure that exists for three centuries before a revolution ushers in what he calls “The Brotherhood of Man.”  London, a socialist activist who died in 1916, was never witness to the fact that his predictions about San Francisco came true —but one in which the transformation to a brotherhood of man transformed itself into a socialist oligarchy.

Nevertheless, Marxian socialism in America failed because it was largely rejected by the American people.  This rejection fueled a massive undertaking by the socialist elite to rethink their strategies. 

The change came in 1973.  It was the year that the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book Gulag Archipelago was published.  It demolished any pretense that communism had any moral authority.  Socialism was exposed for what it is.  The American left struggled … what next, then?  The answer: identity politics: a struggle between victim and victimizer, the oppressed and the oppressor, and rather than presenting the socialist ideal as being collectivist in nature, the political left began to “expose” the power of the white people over exploited minorities (and third-world nations). 

And where should this new battle plan be implemented?  Within US colleges and universities, of course.  Writer Bruce Bawer tells us: “The point [became] simply to “prove”—repetitively, endlessly—certain facile, reductive, and invariably left-wing points about the nature of power and oppression.  In this new version of the humanities, all of Western civilization is not analyzed through the use of reason or judged according to aesthetic standards that have been developed over centuries; rather, it is viewed through prisms of race, class, and gender, and is hailed or condemned in accordance with certain political checklists.”

This is American socialism today.  We are witness to it every single day in the 24/7 news media, the perfect place for the expression of opinion vs. fact.

In contrast to leftist socialism (pick any of its manifestations) free-market capitalism is founded upon voluntary human interaction.  Its characteristics include private property ownership, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchanges of goods and services, and competitive markets. 

People who own wealth make their own economic and investment decisions; prices and the distribution of goods and services are controlled through competition.  Traditional Americans believe that while there is a role for government, it must be a limited role —as reflected in the United States Constitution.  There is another significant distinction: it is founded on commonality among Americans, which includes friendliness toward one another, the sharing of common values, beliefs, and traditions.  True Americans have a firm belief in the goodness of our founding documents.

America is now involved in a new civil war.  Is it a contest involving differences in culture, east coast to west, northern border to southern?  On the one hand, American socialists (nee communists) deny the importance of God, endorsed such odd notions as transgender rights, forcing small business owners to provide medical procedures for the employees that violate our religious beliefs, force Catholic Nuns to provide contraception, engineered the firing of corporate executives because of their stand on such issues as marriage equality, imposed fines upon bakeries who refused to service homosexual weddings, and denying to Christians the same religious protections accorded to Native Americans.

It is more than a cultural war.  It is a conflict that pits west coast, metropolitan, well-educated upper-class elite against the traditions and liberties of middle American, exurban and rural, lower-middle- and working-class citizens with a modest education.  It is a war where the privileged few seek to impose their will on a recalcitrant majority of traditional Americans.

At present, the conflict manifests itself as a cold civil war.  It doesn’t need to become a “hot” war.  This will depend, I think, on how well the intractable majority realizes their power at the voting booth —which is why I think Mr. Trump is making such a gargantuan effort to “stump” for the Republican ticket in the mid-term elections.  He appeals to those of us who regard ourselves as nationalist s—that is to say, people who are passionate in our love for America.

Note this important contrast: Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party of unity around our founding principles, while the socialists are the party of elitists who can only offer us the politics of identity.  Which of these will you choose?

15 Responses to “Rejecting Socialism”

  1. Hootin' Anni Says:

    I am now going to go see if I can find the book by London!!

    Interesting read, Mustang

    Liked by 2 people

  2. thetinfoilhatsociety Says:

    “Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party of unity around our founding principles…” Are you crazy? Lincoln fought the South specifically to negate the Union as a voluntary status, subject to withdrawal by dissenting states, at any time. He forced federal governance over states’ rights at the expense of millions of lives lost. He is the very reason we have what we have now. Had the South been allowed to go its own way the world would be very different now. It was an economic war, not a war about slavery.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mustang Says:

      I could be crazy; you aren’t the first person to suggest it (smile). Our history is nothing if not interesting. It is also not what everyone thinks it is. So much “truth” of the times has been omitted in our public education system. On the issue, he was certainly not our finest president, but I do think that the challenges handed to him during his administration were by far the most vexing in our nation’s history. Given the political climate of the time, I can’t imagine how any of the other nominees might have done better. Would any president have allowed South Carolina to secede on the basis of nullification? Democrat Andrew Jackson certainly would not have permitted it, and he said as much. Beyond this, the issue of states’ rights (back then) was a very low-level issue except as a means of convincing citizens that secession was in any way justifiable.

      The fact is, the political discord that led to the Civil War began almost immediately following the ratification of the US Constitution; far earlier than South Carolina’s secession in 1861. Truly, this was our country’s darkest hour. You are absolutely correct to argue that the North-South issue was one of economics, but I do not think we can separate slavery from the issue of economics.

      As a southerner, I truly hate the aftermath of the Civil War. Reconstruction/reunification was repressive and, to use a modern term, unfair. I have not read this, but I do suspect that its tyranny was intentional —to teach southerners what it is like to live beyond the protections of a Constitution and Bill of Rights. It lasted far too long. Its effect disunited our people for well over 100 years. Yet, in giving this a lot of thought, I simply do not know what else might have been done (at that time) to, as you’ve said, “force” reunification. In any case, Mr. Lincoln was long dead by the time “radical” Republicans forced the issue.

      I highly recommend a recent documentary by Dinesh D’Souza titled “The Death of America.” I think you can rent it on Amazon Prime for around $5.00.

      Lincoln famously said, “ … that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom —and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” It is my belief that these concepts saved America from the tyranny Woodrow Wilson imposed on the American people during World War I. I also believe that push-back by the party of Lincoln during FDR’s love affair with Italian fascism saved our Constitution and our Bill of Rights in the period leading up to World War II. My concern today is that these words, which speak to us of unity, may not survive the onslaught of socialism, which intentionally undermines the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      I thank you so much for your excellent comment. I promise to seek professional treatment. 🙂

      Liked by 4 people

  3. petermc3 Says:

    Following last might’s as expected House Election cluster f__k it would appear the “american people” have taken one more small step towards socialism and one great leap towards self immolation. Beyond a doubt the democrat party is no more than an appendage of the media and the media is now truly the drug of choice for the masses. The biggest surprises were the Texas faker Beto and the black racist in Florida not fooling a majority of the respective electorates. What’s next? Trump and the senate will be in the media rifle scope and with two years to play with should we expect a full out no holds barred assault on both? Who knows….

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Nancy Pelosi said that the Democratic win of the House was “All about stopping the GOP.” Perhaps. I think it was all about stopping the will of half of the American people from realizing their hopes for our future.

      For those on the left who claim that their agenda was about healthcare, it is pure eyewash. The healthcare system we have now is the healthcare system adopted unilaterally by the Democrats in 2008. I should note that it was mere moments after the close of elections that Pelosi stepped to the microphone and began lying —which is something she does without batting an eye.

      There are unresolved issues —most of these as a result of a RINO House the day before yesterday. We won’t see a wall any time soon; we will not have a solution to the immigration problem, we will not solve the question of birthright citizenship. The can gets kicked down the lane a bit further.

      There are a few things that we should remember about our political system. First, America has a very large political tent with room for all kinds of people; even a place for idiots like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. The second thing to remember is that the founding fathers set up the House of Representatives as a place where the voice of the people could be heard, but one in which, given the passions of politics, turns over every two years. In other words, the people can rid themselves of House idiots rather quickly.

      The founders intended that the Senate is a more mature, reasoned, less emotional chamber. There are snakes in the senate, of course, but they are less viperous than those in the House.

      Still, I think it is interesting to note that the top of the Democratic Party in the Senate consists of Harris, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Warren, Sanders, Menendez, and Schumer. We should conclude these people represent the new face of the Democratic Party: progressive communists all.

      One quick note about the Georgia gubernatorial contest. Did any of Stacy Abram’s supporters understand her platform, and did they support her for her high-taxes, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration, sanctuary state positions? No one will support higher taxes unless they personally benefit from it. Abram’s base of support was Atlanta; they voted for her because she’s black; it is a corruption of our political system. Most black people in Atlanta, or so it seems, have forgotten what Martin Luther King, Jr., had to say about character.

      Well, Trump will have his hands full, but he’s up for it … and I think he actually relishes the challenges of a radically leftist House. In fact, I think these mid-term election results suit Mr. Trump just fine. So now we begin the road to the general election in 2020. Politics, it seems, never goes away …

      Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Now Trump needs an AG the likes of Holder and start investigations of any and all Dems he can lay his hands on.
      He is going to play a wild game of chess…the danger is how close and how much can the investigations by the Dems gum up the works, and damage him. I for one believe greatly. But as Mustang says, he didn’t ask me…
      The fact is Ryan controlling the House would never go any farther than it has gotten. It was dead in the water.
      Going to be a bumpy ride.

      Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Peter… I cannot imagine NJ preferring to go down the road of electing a known corrupt politician, but then I don’t understand Ellison and so many Sharia types getting elected to local elections either.


    • Mustang Says:

      Bunks, I share you concern about the increase in Islamist representatives in our government, at various levels. I am personally opposed to the tenets of Islam and all that it stands for. I am colored in my views by the fact of extremism that continues to plague our earth. That aside, however, we have to consider that ‘freedom of religion’ is one of our most cherished unalienable rights. As populations increase within Moslem communities, it makes sense to me that we will observe increases of those who represent Islamist points of view.

      Personally, I cannot imagine running for office, winning, taking an oath of office that demands adherence to the United States Constitution, and then repudiating that oath as a practical matter by one’s adherence to Shari ‘a law. Maybe I’m just not smart enough to get it. This, in my view, is the ‘down side’ of liberal immigration policies but I can see no remedy without substantive and unseemly changes to the American we love. In any case, by the time this comes to a head —which surely it will, I will be long gone.

      For myself, I wish the American people would stand up to repudiate the cancer that is socialism (which Islamists whole-heartedly support). Looking at the most radical elements of the communist democratic party, we find that they come from California, New York, New Jersey, and Vermont. Is the problem really Harris, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Warren, Sanders, Menendez, and Schumer … or is the real problem the people who elected them?

      Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Sharia is a bridge too far…. the oath is to uphold the Constitution. If they cannot do that in good faith then they have reneged their position.

        Liked by 2 people

      • petermc3 Says:

        Its the electorate, no doubt. They are the gasoline priming the engine…fools all.
        I recall rather clearly in the spring of 2009 a “friend of mine, a self employed business man commenting on how lousy business was saying, verbatim, “It’s a good thing we have Obama to pull our chestnuts out of the fire.” I rest my case.

        Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Yesterday I read that now over half of America receives “benefits.” Thats sums it up as well Peter.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: