- Note: I first posted this on Facebook.
First, let me define socialism. Socialism is a collectivist social, political and economic system that rejects the principle of individual rights and subjugates the individual to the state or collective for the sake of what its ideologues call the greater good. It is a form of statism or collectivism, which means more government or absolute state control of individuals.
Here’s another philosophic definition of Socialism: “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
What a lot of people don’t know is that Karl Marx did not invent socialism; he merely conceptualized or introduced his own collectivist/statist system– Marxism. He did not establish the rules or philosophic doctrines of a communist society. If you think that Marx invented socialism or communism, then, you’re either dishonest or a useful idiot. In fact, there were socialist collectives or intellectuals (the Utopian Socialists) before the birth of Marx. There are many types or forms of socialism, but the basic principles that you need to know are as follows:
- socialism is a collectivist/statist system (key phrases: the state, the greater good, summum bonum, the greatest good for the greatest number, etc.);
- it is opposed to the concept of individualism or individual rights. Individualism“regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”
- Social or collective control of property. However, the communists might argue: ‘Communism does not seek state control of property’. Here’s a question: How would you propose to abolish property rights? Perhaps the communists think people would voluntarily surrender their property to their gang or gangs. What would the communists do to the dissenters? Who or what would control first the surrendered or seized property? The communists may insist to use Orwellian terms to fool the people, but they need a very powerful political entity (e.g., a state, a union, a gang or whatever) to first seize and control all property by force (military, brute force). They may refuse to use the term “state control”; instead, they could use such pleasant-sounding terms as “social justice system”, “people power system”, etc.
By the way, what’s the fundamental difference between communism and socialism? Communism is a floating abstraction; it’s an impossibility. This conceptual flaw in communism reveals Karl Marx’s logical contradictions and infantile mind. This is because it is metaphysically impossible to establish and maintain a stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production without the imprimatur of an all-powerful political entity tasked with guarding such a stateless, property right-less utopia against socio-political chaos, ‘individual greed’, power-grab, invasion, or any form of internal strife. History has repeatedly refuted Marxist communist ideals.
Did Lenin or Mao or Kim Il-Sung establish a communist utopia according to Marx’s definitions and rules? No! They merely established what is generally known as a statist or socialist society. Why? Because communism is the impossible! It is impossible and flawed both in theory and in practice. In the first place, why would the socialist revolutionaries like Mao, Lenin, Kim Il-Sung or Polpot surrender political power by allowing their statist revolt to slip into what Marx called “stateless order structured upon common ownership”? The more a society tries to achieve communism, the more it causes deaths and misery.
Now, there are three collective pillars of the collectivist system of Socialism. They are as follows:
The First Pillar
The ideological socialists (code: IdSoc): They understand the system, they’re dishonest, and they’re purely after political power. They are the ideological and central base of the system. They and their loyal supporters and cronies are the main beneficiaries (the 1%) of the collectivist system. These ideologues are primarily anti-individualists (e.g., anti-capitalists and anti-individual rights), as they simply defined their politics not by what they want and what is right, but by what they loathe.
Strategically they are Machiavellian, because they’re willing and ready to sacrifice or kill people just to achieve their political goal. The IdSocs are ideological altruists. They seek political power for power’s sake. They believe they are the anointed ones– the savior of the poor and the enemy of social injustice and individual greed. They’re willing to kill people to preserve political power, and they’re the very reason for the downfall of their own revolution and collectivist system.
Real-world examples: Lenin, Stalin, Polpot, Mao, Kim Il-sung, JoMa Sison.
The Second Pillar
The emotional socialists (code: EmSoc): While all socialists base their judgment, decisions, beliefs, dogma and faith on emotion, the emotional socialists are what we call today as the do-gooders (but in a hypocritical way). They are the intellectual base of the system.
Unlike the ideological socialists who are purely dishonest, the EmSocs are purely motivated by altruism, which they confusedly, naively termed or defined as mere kindness, goodwill to others and charity. The truth is, altruism and charity/kindness are opposites. They are the political and ideological base of the IdSocs. Without them, the IdSocs are powerless. They are society’s public intellectuals, college professors and preachers. Most EmSocs are DIPLOMA-TOTING MORONS. They believe that their overpriced or government-subsidized diploma is everything– that it can suspend the laws of economics and of reality. They think they’re good or intelligent because of their college diploma or academic credentials, because the people love or admire them, and because their aim is to help the poor.
The EmSocs are first-rate Second-Handers. Like the IdSocs, the EmSocs are hypocrites. In mixed economies like the United States, France and the Philippines, the EmSocs understand that the ultimate political goal of all welfare programs (e.g., universal health, reproductive program, anti-population program, minimum wage laws, etc.) is SOCIALISM. Examples: Francisco Nemenzo, Michael Moore, Thom Hartmann.
The Third Pillar
The useful idiots: They are the confused statists who don’t have any idea of the system of socialism and communism. The useful idiots are the products of a long-term, well-planned ideological subversion by both the IdSocs and the
What is primarily important is what they actually support, politically, morally and ideologically. While many useful idiots are not self-confessed socialists, all of them support ‘socialistic’ programs. They are the kind who’d argue or shout: “Who’ll build the roads?” “Who’ll feed the poor?” “Who’ll moderate individual greed?” In mixed economies like the United States, France and the Philippines, the useful idiots support welfare programs because they believe these government programs and policies advance their interests and help the poor.
They are useful idiots because of their sheer inability to know that the programs and politics they support are injurious to their long-term welfare and interests. Example: some of the socialist members of the Filipino Freefarters (freethinkers), Carlos Celdran (who’s not actually a self-confessed socialist), and many others.