Killing Socialism

Source: "World Population Review 2020"

In his “Killing Series” (Killing Lincoln, Killing Reagan, Killing Jesus, etc.), former Fox News conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly uses a powerful hook in his titles, one that leaves only one question unanswered: is he for or against the killing? You would think that‘s the one thing to be clear about, but no. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Far right conservatives have been known to go out of their way to deconstruct the “socialist” teachings of Jesus, Lincoln’s “socialist” war on the South, etc. After all, if there’s one thing that history teaches us is that you can spin it however you want. Alternative truth is as alternative truth does.

And so goes socialism. Somewhere between the hot war and the cold one, socialism committed political harakiri by declaring war on capitalism. Of course, depending on how intelligent your education was, over time you realized that socialism had nothing to do with it. The real system was unmasked as “communism”, an unsustainable hijacking of socialism by totalitarian dictatorships. An attempt to sanitize the dictatorship part. Yet another chapter in the history books under the “alternative truths” era. Not unlike, when it comes to systemic distortions in history, invoking the unalienable rights of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not quite self-evident to those forced immigrants from Africa, now was it. More like self-serving. Let’s get one thing clear, American Fringe: if it doesn’t sting half the time it ain’t the truth. 

Speaking of the pursuit of happiness: one of the least intelligent things history has witnessed over the past 100 years is the political pandering to the mutual exclusivity of capitalism and socialism. As if your left arm and your right arm were mutually exclusive. Oh, the evolutionary retardation...

Capitalism and socialism were never meant to be “standalone” systems. There is no endgame in pure socialism anymore than there is one in pure capitalism. When the roots of free trade sprouted, when supply and demand driven economics launched a thousand ships, and when the invisible hand of the market itself first touched the brave new face of mankind, the emerging system known as capitalism was never intended as a means to replace social welfare. Not in a million years. In fact, quite the opposite is true: through the newfound wealth of hundreds, and eventually thousands, the collective notion of charity was born (collective as in, post-Royal). It was a self-conscious realization that perhaps something should be done to help the disenfranchised. Whether in guilt or practicality (an overly disenfranchised society cannot be capitalized on, not to mention it is dangerously unstable), socialism was born out of capitalism. One could not, and still cannot, exist without the other.

After a Marxist false-start, severely wounded by a Soviet false flag, socialism finally found its wings in European intelligence. After two devastating world wars, no one understood better the importance of a free and enfranchised society. Not “or”. AND.

To pity socialism against capitalism is not merely unintelligent: it reveals a pathological need to affiliate yourself to a political ideology for the approval of your peers. One that you neither understand nor care to do so. At best, it persists in great part by a misguided overcompensation for a pain caused by false flags: Socialism may or may not be communism, but it must die. Capitalism may or may not be post-slavery, but it must be killed.

The zero-sum games of politics are systemic dead-endgames. They are evolutionary filters of sorts, where obsolete prime directives go to die. Not merely in body, to be sure: extinct. Wiped out from the face of time, for the greater good of an enfranchised human race.