Stop Calling Socialists "Liberals"; It is Wrong, It is Stupid, and I am Done With It

The Greatest Threat to the West is not the Despotic Foreign Tyrant, but the Free Man's Willingness to Concede Natural Law and Assume the Chains of Bondage.

The persistent misuse of the term “liberal” to describe socialists has reached a boiling point. It is a misnomer that has been perpetuated for far too long, and it is time to put an end to it. Socialism and liberalism are two distinct ideologies that have fundamentally different values, principles, and goals.

The conflation of these two ideologies is not only inaccurate, but it is also damaging. It has led to a situation where socialists are able to masquerade as liberals, and where the term “liberal” has become synonymous with socialism.

The distinction between liberalism and socialism is not just a matter of semantics, but it is also a matter of substance. We need to be clear about what we believe in, and we need to be clear about what we are fighting for. We need to stop calling socialists “liberals”, and we need to start calling them what they are: socialists.

If you appreciate my articles, please consider giving them a like. It's a simple gesture that doesn't cost you anything, but it goes a long way in promoting this post, combating censorship, and fighting the issues that you are apparently not a big fan of.

The farcical notion of socialism continues to be peddled by the self-proclaimed elite, who, in their infinite wisdom, believe they can engineer a utopian society by forcibly confiscating the means of production. Newsflash: it's been tried, and it's been a catastrophic failure every single time.

The inconvenient truth is that socialism is a parasite that feeds on the host of industrial civilization, only to eventually consume and destroy it. The 20th century is replete with examples of socialist experiments gone horribly wrong, yet the true believers continue to proselytize, undeterred by the mountains of evidence against their ideology.

The reality is that socialism is a system of slavery, masquerading as a panacea for humanity's ills. It's a recipe for disaster, a toxic cocktail of coercion, central planning, and moral bankruptcy.

The apologists for socialism would have you believe that it's a viable alternative to capitalism, but the truth is that socialism is a fundamentally flawed concept that can only be implemented through force and coercion. It's a political system that seeks to strangle individual freedom, creativity, and innovation, replacing them with the cold, dead hand of bureaucratic control.

The contrast between socialism and capitalism is often misunderstood. While capitalism is an organic, spontaneous order that emerges from human interaction, socialism is a contrived, artificial construct that must be imposed from above.

Capitalism is an economic system that allows individuals to pursue their passions and interests freely, while socialism is a political system that seeks to dictate every aspect of human life. The proper antithesis to socialism is not capitalism, but rather the liberal government, which protects individual rights and freedoms while allowing the market to function freely.

The catastrophic consequences of socialism are well-documented, from the Soviet Union's gulags to Venezuela's economic collapse. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, socialism continues to be peddled as a viable alternative to capitalism.

This is due in part to the corruption of our language, which has been hijacked by the socialist faithful to obscure the truth and confuse the masses. But it's also because socialism is a faith, a twisted ideology that brooks no dissent and tolerates no criticism.

To defeat socialism, we must confront its three-headed monster: its twisted logic, its fraudulent language, and its dark morality. Anything less would be a dereliction of our duty to defend freedom and individuality.

The battle against socialism has been waged for over a century, with free men developing a robust arsenal of arguments, rhetorical devices, and historical examples to counter its pernicious influence. However, our defenses have been breached by a more insidious foe: the corruption of language.

The very fabric of our discourse has been distorted, allowing socialism to masquerade as a benevolent force, while capitalism is vilified as a corrupt and oppressive system. The terms of the debate have been rigged, rendering even the most well-intentioned arguments in favor of liberty ineffective.

In this Orwellian landscape, the definition of socialism has been hijacked to mean a form of capitalism, while corruption is rebranded as capitalism, and freedom is conflated with chaos. The notion of democracy has been reduced to a mere synonym for freedom, stripping it of its original meaning.

This linguistic legerdemain has created a situation where even arguments ostensibly in favor of liberty can only lead to its erosion. The rules of language in popular culture have been so distorted that the very structure of our arguments has become a liability.

To mount a credible defense of the liberal state, we must begin by reclaiming the terms of the debate. Government, in its most basic form, is a compromise among men, where individual freedom is traded for security.

This compromise is comprised of various policies, which can be broadly categorized into two types: liberal and illiberal. Liberal policies are those that serve to protect individual liberty, while illiberal policies are those that prioritize other goals, regardless of their intentions or consequences.

Socialism, with its emphasis on collective ownership and control, is a system of illiberal policies that seeks to enforce a moral proposition: individual freedom is sacrificed for the sake of an abstract “social good.”

At the heart of this “social good” lies the notion of equality, but not the liberal ideal of equal opportunity. Rather, socialism seeks to impose a total material equality of outcome, where everyone is reduced to the same level of economic and social status.

To refute the merits of socialism, we need not ascribe malicious intent to its proponents. Assuming that socialists genuinely believe in the moral value of equality of outcome, we can focus on the policies themselves, which are self-negating. The pursuit of equality of outcome is logically impossible in a socialist state, as it would require a level of control and coercion that is incompatible with human nature.