Younger generations have always had
that group trying to be “edgy” with their support for socialism,
but it's becoming more mainstream in liberal politics. You have
viable socialist leaning presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders,
a full blown socialist in the Seattle city council, and democratic
socialists running unopposed for legislative seats in several states.
To be fair, I don't think of socialists
as red devils running around with a nefarious agenda, or just crying
for “free” stuff because they're too lazy to work. Their
intentions are legitimately noble, wanting to establish equality by
giving everyone the same access to life's necessities regardless of
differences such as demographics or economic class. The idea of
achieving equality and putting safety nets in place affords everyone
the chance to live their lives mostly worry free.
In application, however, socialism
devolves into exactly the kind of system they'd claim to be
championing against. Their naivety conveniently overlooks that in
practice socialism's objective of establishing equality ends up being
achieved through a sadistic elimination of those very differences
that a free society can learn to value and appreciate.
A hard pill to swallow: Socialism is
one of the most discriminatory examples of governing there is, as it
is required in order for the model to survive. It requires
like-minded thinking that shares the same goals and collective
thought process in order to be achievable, which necessitates state
sanctioned discrimination to preserve sustainability.
Consider this - The only successful
models of socialism, such as the Nordic Model, have been in
homogeneous societies lacking diversity and multiculturalism. Take
Norway as an example:
Ethnicity: 91.5% white (83.2% being
specifically Norwegian)
Religion: 71.5% Lutheran (another 6.7%
being other Christian)
Urbanization: 81% urban population
Religion being one of the biggest
factors, as Martin Schroder argues “Lutheranism promotes the
idea of a nationwide community of believers and it promotes state
involvement in economic and social life. This allows nationwide
welfare solidarity and economic coordination”. Immigration also
being key, as (despite some rhetoric) Europe in general is fairly
xenophobic in comparison to the United States.
In more diverse societies,
sustainability of socialism becomes far more complex as compliance
isn't naturally afforded like you would find in one where ideals are
mostly shared. In order for the model to survive you have two options
– become selective with who can be apart of your society, or use
force and manipulation to gain compliance. This leads to common
traits or practices found in these systems of government:
-Heavy censorship
-An information bottleneck through
nationalized networks
-Suppression of organized religion
operating without state sponsorship
-Violent elimination of political
opposition
-Labor Camps or Gulags
-Civilian disarmament
This requirement for selectiveness and
compliance was also learned repeatedly on a smaller scale during the
1960's and 70's with hippie communes. Open admission and group
infighting were the leading causes for financial ruin and failure.
Taking the longest self-sustaining secular community in North America
as an example – the
Twin Oaks Community – their system has required rigid rules,
labor requirements, and selective membership. There's further
examples of writers providing personal
tales living in communities, where they discuss the rigid life
style and removal of folks with mental illness. Other longer running
examples could include monks
and monasteries, that are sustainable through like-minded
religious faith and strict order. My favorite example being Dieter
Duhm who had become disillusioned with socialist communities, as
they ultimately failed for being far too open and indiscriminate in
invitation.
Efforts to mix socialism into a free
society are just disasters in the making. Why? Well, you have the
above examples of what happens when people fail to contribute... but
there's also the problem of having people like me that are vehemently
opposed and will fight your policy tooth and nail to ensure you don't
force something on me that I don't want. That ultimately means most
efforts for creating socialist policies are doomed to failure with
heavily flawed legislation and little cooperation to keep it afloat.
Take the Affordable Care Act as an example. If this were in a society
where everyone generally thinks the same, this is something that
could have been tweaked and perfected (or just completely shifted to
universal healthcare). However, in a society where everyone thinks
differently, this legislation was born without a chance for survival.
It was severely flawed, and rapidly became unsustainable without
collective cooperation for a solution to fix it.
You place these examples on a grander
scale, and you see why multicultural socialist governments become
oppressive over time in order to maintain their system. The model
can't afford to have people like me in it, therefore the only option
is to exclude me or force my compliance. Forced compliance has been
the trend, which is why most socialist takeovers follow a formula of
*Step A) Revolution, Step B) Take away the guns, Step C) Run the
propaganda machine*
All this considered, people are
oblivious to that fact that identifying as a “democratic socialist”
means you're a walking oxymoron. Rights you'd expect in a free and
fair society can't sustainably coexist with collectivism in a place
that boasts significant diversity.
