Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the socialist swindle is that there can be a tyranny of the people by anyone other than an appointed few. One cannot tyrannize himself or herself. A masochist might but they enjoy it so it’s not tyranny, it’s something else. Therefore someone has to be appointed to do the tyrannizing. So when a socialist claims to be a populist they are manipulating us. This is because if everyone is allowed to go about their business capitalism arises naturally, the only way to have socialism is by force. Some have to lower their standard of living so others can raise theirs. This violates the principle of self-interest. The more it violates self-interest the more force is necessary. This becomes a feedback loop until despotism is reached. Socialism then is rightly an elitist philosophy and system that leads to tyranny.
Any philosophy that advocates for tyrannical rule by a few is elitist. Claiming that a faction is the only rightful representative of the people so is populist, is spurious. No matter how such rule is rationalized, it is still rule by an elite. The same is true of aristocratic systems. The idea that the rest of us must be ruled by an appointed elite is the definition of elitism. What socialism is then, is an elitist system that justifies despotism by claiming to do it in the name of those they tyrannize. The tyranny of the masses is more apt than they might have intended. More often than not the despots are self-appointed as well. Then again, isn’t that what all elitist philosophies do? They self-justify their self-appointment and unlimited power. They do it in the name of God, the King, or sometimes the masses.
Under communism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, and all other modern centrally planned systems the justification is to defend and elevate the downtrodden. Sometimes they are workers, the volk, other times they are minorities, and lately they are the deranged. Central planners need a victim to justify their power. They always choose a politically favored group to represent, and a politically disfavored group to destroy. Lenin chose the Kulaks to liquidate. Then he exterminated them with blood curdling efficiency. The tyranny was done by an elite but was called the tyranny of the masses. The claim is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So the many turn on the few, until they have become a mortal Ouboros. A selfish self-appointed, self-consuming rapacious beast.
Socialists like to claim that real socialism has never been tried. This is because they see socialism as structured anarchy. Marx said communism would be the tyranny of the masses, all means of production would be jointly owned, and human nature would evolve to suit the new paradigm. The only problem is, how? How do you allow anarchy yet control it? How do you jointly own the means of production without a core of professional elites to run it? Moreover, how do you get human nature itself to become more ant like and less human? These are intractable problems for socialism. What the socialism deniers are saying is not that real socialism has never been tried, but that real socialism can never be tried. Only unlimited power given to a few can achieve the goals they set.
Socialism, fascism, communism and indeed all forms of central planning then are elitist systems that call themselves populist. I ask you, is a wolf wearing a sheepskin a sheep or a wolf? Does calling itself a sheep make it one? No, a wolf is a wolf whether it wears a sheepskin or not. It may baa like a sheep and it may assert is is a sheep… but it is a wolf. Central planning is not and never can be a populist system. Populism, or devolving power to the people, is the antithesis of central planning. So when a central planner in whatever flavor, socialist, communist, fascist, Marxist, globalist, etc., claims to be a populist… know they are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and they mean you no good.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
