Q: Why do you constantly condemn the monetary greed of Capitalism but never condemn the brutal, murderous political greed of Socialism?
A: Because brutalizing and murdering a population under their control is the only way to lift them up to their Socialist moral perfection!
I’ve had more than enough of these sanctimonious Progressive scolds who condemn the monetary greed associated with Capitalism but remain silent about the far worse political (and monetary) greed associated with Socialism. Make no mistake, both are sinful, but the human consequences of the former pale in comparison with those of the latter. If you doubt this statement I suggest that you review the previous posts from this series (see the first, second and third).
And yet those of us who know better have generally allowed this scandalous hypocrisy to go on unopposed. The reasons why vary from lack of confidence in knowledge to conflict avoidance to fear of the social and personal consequences. The fear exists because within this self-proclaimed morally superior movement is a cohort that will resort to almost any vile tactic to destroy visible opposition including: cowardly whispering campaigns that impugn our morals and motives, open vicious verbal abuse and in extreme but highly visible cases public destruction of our character and livelihood through social media mob action.
The existence of this power to demean and destroy human beings holding opposing opinions has led to a situation in which not only do most people remain silent, but many choose to parrot whatever Progressive talking points are currently in vogue in order to protect themselves. This dynamic was brilliantly summed up by the French author Charles Péguy* (see the note at the end of this post):
“It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.”
The idea that these people — who purposefully ignore the impoverishment, murder and enslavement of whole populations in order to advance their own narcissistic, misanthropic desire for political power over their fellow citizens — should be above criticism has become untenable.
Yes, the sins of Capitalism must be identified and dealt with. In fact many of them have been though a myriad of laws and regulations. Do we pay anywhere near the attention to the sins of governmental bureaucrats who use their powers to silence and destroy citizens and businesses with whom they disagree (see the IRS, Justice Department, FBI, Intelligence Agencies, EPA, etc.)? Do we call it “greed” when Progressive politicians grow incredibly wealthy while “serving” in public office while constantly preaching against greed in the private sector?
At least people and businesses in a liberal capitalist democracy who grow wealthy generally do so by providing goods and services that other free people choose to buy. And, when these companies cease to provide useful products (or can no longer do so as efficiently as their competition) they generally go out of business. Thus there is a powerful incentive to identify and provide what their customers want. Yes, they want things with which others disagree. But at least they tend to not want to be impoverished and brutalized.
But the “product” of Socialism is impoverishment and brutalization of a country’s population in pursuit of an elite’s self-serving vision of utopia. In the process the Socialist leaders and bureaucrats prosper while the general population descends into a hellish state of hunger, fear, poverty and hopelessness.
Make no mistake, with release and support of the “Green New Deal” the Progressive movement has shown that they are contemplating a totalitarian path. The fact that it is idiotic (e.g., a tiny sampling: ban air travel and cow farts) will not deter them any more than did the idiocy of the “Great Leap Forward” in Communist China, the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union or the the creation of a “New Man” in Cambodia. The point isn’t the wisdom (or lack thereof) of their policy proposals. The real point is the pretext for narcissistic, ideology-blinded, highly-credentialed know-nothings to seize ever more power over our lives.
Yes, I understand that the chances of something like this happening in the United States is currently near zero. However, it is also true that the younger generations have been so propagandized and miseducated that they are flirting with the desirability of a Socialist future. There are armies of educators, journalists, governmental bureaucrats, professional organizations, church leaders, non-profits and NGOs who are selling this vile product.
Here’s how the New York Times (!) article cited above concluded (emphasis added).
Baby portraits of the children, one of their few cherished belongings, hang prominently on the wall. The only food in the entire house is half a bag of salt, and one lime.
“This is a nightmare,” said Ms. Merchán’s sister, Andreína del Valle Merchán, 25, describing how the children start to vomit, sweat and become sluggish after days of not eating. Her own 5-year-old daughter had lost 11 pounds this year and now weighed only 17 pounds, she said.
The suffering of Venezuelan families is expected to worsen next year. Beyond the I.M.F.’s warning that inflation could surpass 2,300 percent, observers worry that the leftist government will continue to refuse international aid for political reasons.
“If they accept the help, they accept that there is a humanitarian crisis here, and officially recognize that their population is vulnerable, and just how much their policies failed them,” said Susana Raffalli, a specialist on food emergencies who consults for Caritas in Venezuela.
The Venezuelan government has used food to keep the Socialists in power, critics say. Before recent elections, people living in government housing projects said they were visited by representatives of their local Socialist community councils — the government-aligned groups that organize the delivery of boxes of cheap food — and threatened with being cut off if they did not vote for the government.
Kenyerber’s relatives do not expect the economic crisis to improve anytime soon. They fear that another child in the family may die as well.
“I worry about it day and night,” said his aunt, Andreína.
So, things are so obviously terrible in Socialist Venezuela that the New York Times feels compelled to publish this story. And yet the New York Times remains generally supportive of the Socialist political project!
How dare you Progressive Socialists proclaim that your’s is a superior morality! You should be ashamed of yourselves. But you have demonstrated that “the children” only matter as props for your virtue signaling protests. Actual children dying from the ravages of actual Socialism are apparently just the price to be paid in pursuit of your ideological holy war.
The least that we can do is to speak up against this evil, bloody ideology whenever and wherever it dares to claim its morality and utility as a means of social organization.
Ironically, Charles Péguy was a Christian, Socialist and French patriot (1873-1914). Thus he died well before the genocidal consequences of the first practical application of Socialism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the U.S.S.R., formed after the 1917 Russian Revolution) occurred. Had he lived to see this tragedy, other of his famous quotes would have been put to the test.
“Tyranny is always better organised than freedom”
“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.“