Socialism, Liberty, and The Real Definition of Fascism



hey guys I'm Kat with lucid implications and today I'm going to go into a little bit more detail on my last topic of socialism and discuss exactly why it won't work as well as the topics of freedom and the real definition of fascism so to start I want to say that no compassionate person is comfortable with the knowledge that others are suffering personally I can't even stand to see an insect suffer let alone an animal or human being I literally cried the other day when I accidentally stepped on a snail so as you can imagine the idea of other people suffering is something that is very difficult for me and because of that I have considered many possibilities for what the best ways to lessen this are somewhere along the way I began to wonder if there was a system of government that could do this because if I found one I would wholeheartedly support it as with myself many compassionate people have at least considered or researched the ideas of socialism and communism it pains us to see others suffer or even just struggle perhaps it seems at times that a system like this is the only way to ensure that everyone is taken care of however there are many reasons why the forced redistribution of resources and government-owned means of production would not work while the literal definition of socialism is to have these things owned and controlled by the community in practice unless the entire community is choosing to take part these things can only be done by a very powerful centralized Authority there are many examples in history of how attempts at this have not worked one is of an attempt by Robert Owens which is often touted to be a huge success after his successful but obviously capitalist experiment with new lanark in Scotland Owens came to the new world and attempted to establish a socialist utopian society in 1824 in Indiana which he called New Harmony however after the experiment there are many quotes from Owens describing the problems with this system Owens is quoted as saying that he found among those in his community no quote noble desire to work for the common good when there was no way to personally profit unquote he was also quoted as saying quote no societies with common property and equality could prosper if composed of persons unfit for their peculiar duties in order to succeed it was needful to exclude the intemperate the idle the careless the quarrelsome the avaricious the selfish unquote so basically he's saying that a society like this could only succeed if it is comprised only of people with no flaws this is only one famous example but trust me or maybe do some of your own research when I say there were many experiments like this over the last couple hundred years one of the reasons that societies like this fail is that compassion can't be forced it can be fostered and encouraged especially when done from a young age but it cannot be forced compassion is something that grows naturally in a healthy society while some people are and will always be just naturally selfish in general a cutthroat mentality is encouraged by a difficult life in a sense that there is just that there are just not enough resources to go around regardless of any of our current social and political problems life in the West and on average in the rest of the world is more comfortable for more people than ever before in history this encourages the natural evolution of more compassion people have become far more concerned with the well-being of others than in ages past if you look at any of the most difficult points in history the people were most focused on themselves at those times now many people are comfortable and thus the idea of forced financial and social equality for those who are not has become more attractive but a concern for the social and financial well-being of others as well as the actual social and financial well-being of more people must come about more naturally and evolve over time unfortunately at this point in our social political evolution socialism and communism would require the forced implementation of quote unquote equality at least among those who weren't in power many people rebel against anything forced especially something that would require the repossession of much or all of their resources without their consent this forced change would also discourage their natural tendency for compassion by choice thus compounding their desire for rebellion the next problem is that loss of motivation caused by this kind of society will only cause more suffering and a failed society unfortunate as it is the fact of the matter is that a lack of private ownership or the ability to quote unquote get ahead in any meaningful way completely squashes most people's motivation now this is a two-sided issue the first problem would apply to the majority of people who have a limited desire or expectation to really excel this majority is motivated and honestly satisfied by the fulfillment of the basic desire to survive and live comfortably enough and take care of their family once these individuals realize that the current system purports to ensure that they and their families are taken care of with minimal effort from them they will start to lose this motivation even if they are required by law with the threat of punishment to contend to continue to work is able if evil as I'm sure they would be in this type of the type of authoritarian government that this system would require forced work that one doesn't directly benefit from is hardly going to be of the same caliber as it would be otherwise there will certainly be some people who work hard and act as kind of tentpole for those who don't but many average people are just not naturally motivated to excel when they do not have to these people will do the bare minimum to get by and avoid punishment obviously there are many problems with this outcome aside from the fact that this will lower the production of society production of resources and items that are necessary to keep the economy of the society running as well as to keep those in the society fed and clothed this will also mean less satisfaction at a job well done even the most idle natured person usually feels some kind of pleasure at the completion of a necessary task when life becomes a monotony of basic jobs that you do not need to excel at to eat and that excellent at excellence at will likely not have any real effect on your life then that pleasure ceases to exist while some people genuinely do need to be and should be helped completely averaging a society's wealth and production through redistribution only leads to negative outcomes as we have seen in so many failed socialists and communists experiments I probably don't need to tell you guys about Venezuela right but maybe that wasn't real socialism anyway next we have the individuals who naturally dream big the inventors intellectuals leaders and creators these people are rarely satisfied with a basic life again though in this type of society these people can never expect to shine any profits or advancements advancements that they make will no longer be theirs according to Chairman Mao quote seeking the limelight is among other things most contemptible unquote without the possibility for vast success or even public acknowledgement these individuals will be much less motivated this would hurt any society as there would be less chance of technological and other advancements some may desire to altruistically advanced society with no hope of reward the majority of people would not so finally even if you could make such a system work it would require an almost all-powerful authority to create and maintain as it is more than half or nearly all of the population in the West especially would be against someone else taking their resources and deciding how to use them even the most philanthropic person generally prefers to choose how to allocate their charitable funds and so someone would have to be given the power to implement and then enforce this new system so who will we choose to make these vital decisions and enforce them is there any person or group of people that we can completely trust to not ever abuse this much power or take actions to keep it once they have it do you personally trust any politician to be absolutely above misusing almost total political power those seeking such power are often corrupt already but not all of them if we were lucky enough to find leaders who were not they would eventually turn over their power to others and the system and president would now be set for others who may not be so benevolent with all forms of government there are citizens who disagree however when a government is very powerful they must be vigilant and take regular action to keep that power so here's a little scenario for you one that is unfortunately all too possible people especially those who are used to freedom as most of us are in the West will of course want to question or even criticize those chosen for such a gargantuan task and as I said people often question any strong authority over their lives but such criticism could undermine leaders power and the system that put them there so those in power would over time find ways to limit this and any other threat to their station soon our rights as we know them would slowly be removed first as is happening now already as especially in the UK and other parts of Europe it will be more basic liberties such as freedom of speech this would happen insidiously through the passing of laws under the guise of protection from hate speech it would seem innocent enough when again statements and opinions that the majority of us don't really want to say or hear anyway what's the harm in that we would still have free speech right just as long as you don't say those particular words or terms because they are dangerous people would get behind this maybe even fight for it but now the precedent would be set to control and limit other speech next it would be speech that you find a little less offensive maybe you were all for it when it was speech that you personally didn't like but now it might become a little more grey although maybe you wouldn't even notice this transition as it happened so slowly regardless now that hate speech has become a punishable offence people are being accused of hate speech against the government for questioning this perfect system in place everyone is happy right so of course only a criminal would disturb that by disagreeing anyone who questions openly could now be arrested for things like inciting dissent during all of this other rights like the right to bear arms would slowly be taken just in case anyone wanted to fight back we have to protect people from themselves they would say while maximizing media coverage on isolated incidents and not reporting on the hundreds of others where criminals with illegal weapons are stopped with those with legal ones but you must only be exposed to things which support gun narrative oh wait that last part is already happening regardless of how or why only the government can have the monopoly on force right and eventually there would be no option to disagree let alone repeal once this happened there would be no chance to stop those in power from doing whatever they see fit if they become more corrupt or if the system failed then it would be far too late to make changes those in power would not wish to change the system in which they have this power there would be no going back at this point now I know a lot of people these days like to call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist but ironically the real definition of fascism is a social and political atmosphere where people are not free to express themselves in a truly fascist society any opposition to the current government or even in mainstream society is suppressed through not only fear of punishment but fear of social backlash take the extremist left-wing group antiva for example while many of its members really believe that they are standing for freedom to be who one is the truth is that they intimidate those who when being who they are do not fit into their definition of who people should be again ironically I saw a video of a popular transgendered youtuber who is somewhat conservative being physically attacked by a member of an Tifa this kind of tactic the tactic of using fear to intimidate those with whom you do not agree is not about freedom in fact since they like to call people Nazis so much I actually can't think of a modern American group more like the Nazis than an Tifa if the government goes in the same direction of forcibly silencing individuals we will become a truly fascist country a government should fear its citizens not the other way around as John basil Barnhill not Thomas Jefferson as people often think put it during a debate on socialism quote where people fear the government you have tyranny where the government fears people you have Liberty unquote well I am pretty socially liberal in almost all of my moral beliefs I am politically a libertarian and I unfortunately find that lately it is often the far political left who are aiming for the removal of our most basic freedoms for example freedom of speech must be absolute to mean anything and we must have the freedom to offend others lest it be our own point of view that become a fun while I personally prefer to do my best not to offend others it absolutely must be my right to do so if I wish as George Orwell put it quote if Liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear unquote as I pointed out in my previous scenario and against much of the current sentiment it is vital that we also maintain the right to bear arms not only are there many statistics showing that violent crime is lower in countries where the right is respected but most importantly we need this as a last resort to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government I could go on for each of the freedoms on the American billa right or others but that's another topic entirely ultimately if we hand this much power to anyone then there would soon be no chance to take it back we must value the freedoms that we have and not take them for granted while things could be better for many of us currently and as a student with limited money this certainly includes me there is no government enforced quick fix we must gradually evolve our society and educate our children to make compassionate choices this is the only realistic way to end suffering




Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *