The Rise of Socialism
Western countries are witnessing an aggressive challenge to the values and foundations of free, democratic, and civil societies. While public expression of this challenge appears more obvious and aggressive in countries such as the US, the appeal of socialism is expressed by many young adults throughout the world. One could speculate how this might change as the responsibilities of life become personal. The irony is that most of those who advocate the virtue of financial outcomes will become capitalists when they seek economic security, or meet the demands of their materialism.
Daily, we witness the provocative demands of those who believe they have a moral right to steal what others have earned. This virtue signalling about fairness and equality has strong emotional appeal, but what's the basis of this outrage? Is it simply greed masquerading as virtue, or perhaps a sense of moral superiority when defining fairness? If so, what is the moral authority that justifies these fairness opinions?
The idea that equality of financial outcome will in some way result in a fair and just society is intellectually absurd, and those concerned about these issues need to look no further than their own families to see how inequities occur and this is largely defined by perseverance and responsibility. The current assault on traditional values is a form of belligerent narcissism, guided by greed and historical arrogance. If we take the socialist view of equality further and legislate to control outcomes, society moves from financial freedom to financial bondage. The ideologues promoting this appear ignorant of the fact that the ultimate direction of socialism is communism. This shift from freedom to bondage is typified by the tactics of identity politics, where certain sections of society are isolated by the degree to which they're identified as the cause of social inequity. The tragedy is that identity politics is orchestrated in such a way that those who are indeed free, are forced to defend the very freedoms that social ideologues claim to represent. The colour of our skin, the place we work, where we live, or the financial status of our parents, decides the group we’re identified with. It applies any number of labels including “white privilege”, and repeats the narrative to control the language of those who oppose the label. Normally we might call this racism or discrimination, but sadly the indoctrination of recent generations has produced an extremely naive and subjective interpretation of moral fairness. It is interesting that those who promote this narrative, use the same bullying tactics, and rally against it. The argument appears to suggest that it’s unfair for wealth to be in the hands of the loosely defined middle class, and the rich. This inequality justifies the legalized theft of accumulated wealth by ideologically changing our view of personal responsibility.
Leftist activists have achieved an extremely provocative foothold with the young, by changing the popular view of socialism and shaping it in such a way that turns the irreligious into the sacred. The ideology of woke has been propagated over time through educational and academic institutions and typified in the recent marches by school-aged children over climate change. The merits of the climate argument have little to do with the broader intentions of those behind the scenes. Quite frankly it was embarrassing to witness this demonstration of childish naivety. It conveyed the rhetoric of those who schooled them. Children of this age have little wisdom about anything, including the historical reality. Decades of institutional indoctrination about gender, climate change and social inequality have given rise to generations of opinionated but intellectually shallow adults, who at the political end of the debate talk more about elusive theoretical concepts, than anything to do with personal responsibility. The politics of rights are conveyed with as much passion as the claim to have them, and this in itself is concerning in so much as there doesn't seem to be any reasonable foundation or evidence for these so-called rights. A civilised society would suggest that rights under the law exist, but that's all. However, they're not set in stone, and laws can change as social mores evolve within any political system. However, the claim to rights has become an existential moral argument, and thus highly subjective. No free and democratic society can satisfy everyone’s view of them. Sadly, National Socialism at its leftist extreme doesn't even allow for debate, something that might be considered by those concerned.
Rights are not a set of inherently attached entitlements, just because we're born into the human race. Unfortunately, many adults seem to think they are and have bought into the idea of existential rights, and believe they're worth it. The irony is that this religious notion of self-importance appears intolerant if anyone disagrees with their view of rights and freedom. When disagreement occurs, the default attitude from social ideologues is one of contempt and meaningless virtue signalling, all within a moral framework that cannot be quantified. This is obvious to anyone who’s chosen to confront a leftist argument.
The leftist argument despises those they define as the capitalist elite, those they view as the cause of worldwide inequality. The problem is, who is the capitalist elite? This is where the argument becomes silly. It’s predominantly a secular argument, so virtue signalling a moral argument about fairness is a little rich and somewhat convoluted. The question is, why should a secular worldview care about inequity in the first place unless they covet their neighbour’s ass? Surely inequity is an evolutionary by-product of self-preservation. Surely humanity is subject to the rules of the jungle, and power rules? Caring is a moral argument, and secular society can only lay claim to a subjective moral foundation, to hang the origins of caring. In other words, there is no basis to suggest we should care about anyone in the first place unless we're suggesting the existence of an objective moral lawgiver who defines what moral law is. If this were true, personal value might mean something, and caring might have a hanger, on which to hang. However, for the sake of a secular argument, rights and the idea of caring should be viewed as little more than ideas resulting from our subjective intentions, subject to the law, but motivated by individual choice. Moral conscience is not created by a God or placed within us at birth. Therein, an honest secular atheist might logically agree, and therefore reject any objective view of caring. On this basis, the current socialist view of equality, rights and social outcomes is based on an ideological narcissism, a fantasy, with aspirations for power and social control. If not for the aggressive move to impose this fantasy on everyone, radical socialism might not be as concerning as it appears.
