Skip to main content

Why Leftism Fails

The precepts of socialism and communism endure palatably insofar as they apply to families and communities linked by the organic bonds of mutual interest. 

By the nature of their character, these precepts sound agreeable to the extent that we embrace them in our own lives within our own respective families and communities. 

Where that mutual interest begins to wane, however, we witness either abuse of — or, alternatively, enslavement to — the system erected to execute those ends. 

Naturally, people desire optimal outcomes. Due to this proclivity, individuals tend to overstate their commitment to idealistic ends. 

Realistically, individuals make tradeoffs, where they express preference (on the margin) for certain applications of their time, labor and capital. 

Due to the enormity of civilization, the infeasibility of meeting and much less caring about every individual, persons must make decisions to optimize the enjoyment of their lives. 

The communist ideal dictates, “To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.” 

The glaring oversight committed by this statement is multi-faceted, but primarily emanates from the implausibility of reliably gauging either needs or abilities. 

The principle also fails to even remotely justify the unstated assumption that each person is somehow obligated by the needs of another, that one’s perceived ability systematically enslaves him to those reported needs. 

This concept also overlooks the system’s influences over a dynamic, not static, environment where individuals make decisions based on incentives in order to optimize their personal outcomes. 

In the real world, as dictated by the law of least effort, individuals can improve their lot in life by increasing their productivity over costs or, alternatively, by simply minimizing their present costs. 

Of course, one of the primary costs of living — which is grossly underreported — takes the forms of effort and laborious self-application, which can be readily reduced in the face of inconspicuous losses, whereby the new system has eradicated or drastically limited the monetary (or numerical) incentives for work or even healthy habits by obscuring the opportunity costs and obfuscating the manner in which they are paid. 

Leftists will never say it, but their ultimate objective is to replace the accountability features of the price system with those of force and coercion, which they remarkably confuse for compassion when it suits their agenda; this was illustrated recently by a series of revolting remarks related to the Soviet Union's Gulag forced-labor camps, where roughly 1.7 million prisoners perished (of a total of more than 18 million who were sent there) over the 23-year period between 1930 and 1953.

So while the general population may ultimately find itself relatively “equal” in terms of basic stuff, at least as measured by the venerated √úbermensch, they will be radically deprived in terms of gratification and fulfillment. 

The average Leftist tends to confuse the former as the targeted ends of human life, whereas it is merely the means to the latter which serves less conspicuously as the objective of every man and woman on earth. 

Leftists would have you killing yourself if they were philosophically consistent. 

At their very core, they detest the human species and every shortcoming and insecurity it exposes about them personally. 

In their desperation to defend their distaste for humanity, they conveniently develop non-sensical reasonings to conceal their hatred. 

These twisted reasonings or ramblings  inextricably contemporary and uniquely compelling to other discouraged misanthropes — pass as philosophical in their time, when they’re fundamentally nothing more than complaints ignorant of the physical laws of the world, aggrandized by lofty, deliberately-imprecise language, distributed by political propagandists and readily consumed, unquestioningly certified and proudly marketed by the despairing masses eager for relief, whatever the costs or the efficacy of the purported cure. 

For these reasons and many others, which hide between the lines and beneath the text of every honest exposition related to Leftism, the road thereto is tantalizing and insidiously perilous. 

As with an approach to a prominent mountain in the distance, it appears far closer and far easier to summit than it really is. 

In the case of this mountain, however, it’s an illusion beyond a cliff that the caravan will see only when it’s all too late to turn back.

Ultimately, just as with the majestic mirage in the distance, the draw of Leftism invariably prevails over reason as it’s appraised for its projections instead of its predictable results.

For this very reason, survival rests upon the courage and wisdom of those prepared and willing to challenge the status quo, who are courageous enough to publicly reject the directions promulgated on the screens before us.

In the absence of courage, Leftism is unfortunately always destined to prevail, because it will predictably sink lower than the lowest, while the principled and sagacious among us rise above their antics to ironically grant them space and time to fester and infect. 

When the Leftist shouts ideas with rage and emotion, wisdom silently ignores the noise as it fills the void and captivates the unlearned. 

In the face of petty condemnation, senseless virtue signaling, feckless race baiting, and the deliberate obfuscation of history, the independent thinker sees through it and quietly continues in his journey toward truth. 

But in the face of disquieting events that threaten our freedom, it is up to the sagacious, the enlightened, and the abled among us to boldly take up the mantle of liberty and extinguish that veritable threat with uncompromising conviction, with the benefit of history for the benefit of posterity.

In the absence of courage, Leftism's predictable failure produces casualties of men and women otherwise capable of administering its proven antidote, stored always in the facilities of individuals harboring powers indispensable to the future course of freedom. 

In the absence of initiative, inaction amounts to acquiescence yielding the illusion of social consensus, whereby unthinking masses are rendered virtually indistinguishable from their high-minded and sagacious counterparts. 

Together they are led to slaughter, where, for a brief moment in time, the herd finally becomes acutely aware of the perils of the systems they've endorsed or reluctantly accepted.   

As the herd begins to wonder whether this could have been averted, and how they failed to see this coming, the reasoned few among them face the insurmountable regret of recalling that opportunity to preempt it. 

Together they become casualties of their own acquiescence, statistical footnotes to a history inevitably retooled and repurposed for more fashionable forms of the same despotism, capable only of the same ultimate ends. 

In the end, Leftism always fails, both against reason and by the limits of its design. It's up to the people to determine whether they will prove its failure through personal experience or through the cautionary tales of history; whether Leftism will fail in committee or whether it will fail society. 

Either way, Leftism will fail, distinguished throughout history only by the form and figure of its casualties.  


Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators  —  who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes  —   who have fallen victim to the groupthink phenomenon, responsible for their nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes; and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their professed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's