Another great piece. You said, "...those wealthy enough to be insulated from their own hypocrisy..." They are above getting their hands dirty in the day to day interactions to make a living because they can afford to. I observe this to be acquired-sociopathy precisely because of this isolation. They fall prey to the causes and claims of actual sociopaths because they lack the life experience to tell the falsehoods from reality. They carry guilt from not earning their inherited wealth when they know that others must do so. But they also feel superior for not having to do so. A combination of guilt and superiority that compels them to force conditions on others to make society's better taking their cues from those who are predators. Classic cognitive dissonance! Anyone say Rockefeller?
I think you must have been over the target with this one Lily to suffer your recent Substack strike. Finally I have been able to read it and contemplate: how can socialism, a fairly recent product seemingly of purely abstract academic educations, prove superior to the result of millennia of practical real life creative experience, augmented where appropriate with applied theory, that is authentic decentralised capitalism? Unfortunately, at this time too many of those in positions of power and influence over our lives seem to be products of purely abstract academic educations.
Great piece, although I do not agree with your analysis on socialism in Europe. We in Western Europe are deeply socialist countries and we are stagnating. Crumbling down, while our socialist leaders are trying to mask their failures by seizing total control by introducing digital passports and currencies. Don't be fooled by the numbers here, they are just as inflated as the ego's of our European leaders. Just look what happens when you confront them with some facts... 😉
Agree, Jeanette, many troubling aspects of the problems of top-down control, censorship, USAID-type slush funds and stagnation here in the US seem to be shared by Europe. We all need a deep DOGE cleaning! Here’s hoping some elections in Europe go that direction soon as well.
I have to add here that Norway seems to be the exception to the socialist rule of decline. However, three factors set them apart: 1) They are not part of the EU; 2) They have very little immigration; 3) They have a huge oilfield next door. The war in Ukraine made them very rich. Norwegians can afford to be socialists...
A very comprehensive and logical argument. Well done, as usual. In addition, I like to consider the emotional motivation for socialism. For the elite class, the motivation is control, control of everything as you explained.
But what's the motivation of the working class? It's not a philosophical or political argument for most people. I believe it's a desire to be safe and to be taken care of regardless of our efforts. We love the family ideal of getting to do whatever we want as kids and having our needs taken care of by a loving parent.
If only we had a president and a government that would do that, right? Isn't that what government is for? We put ourselves in the position of children in a parent-child relationship instead of peers in an adult to adult relationship in society. And in our emotional family construct, we are glad to do our chores to be taken care of but we believe that we are entitled to the same material benefits as our parents and our brothers and sisters. When they get more than us, it isn't fair. We should all share material benefits equally. The less we teach survival and responsibility and the more we enable dependency in each generation, the more this childlike entitlement grows. Self-sufficiency develops from real life challenges. We are a society of parents who enable dependency with many children who never become financially independent from their parents.
I think those are the emotional reasons behind whatever logic people use to rationalize their desire for socialism. They just want to be taken care of economically while they have the privileges of everyone else. What's wrong with that? It's the vision of a Star Trek utopia. A few, like spoiled children, want all of this with no contribution. But most are happy to contribute as long as they share equally and don't have to worry about any adult worries.
However, what we share as adults is the responsibility to survive and accountability for our behavior. Socialism, and most representative systems, allow those with power to take advantage of everyone else. The elite use political parties to control the government and support corrupt politicians who give the parties and hence, the elite, what they want. It's their career. How could they not serve their masters who put them there to stay in their career and their position?
It is a hierarchical power structure with many class layers. Unfortunately, the masses are at the bottom. Many things about being at the bottom aren't fair. And even if they are fair, they don't feel nice to us. We have to work to survive and we are responsible for our own decisions and survival.
You can be an adult and learn how to survive or you can be a child and look for others to take care of you while surrendering control to them. It's a nice position because you don't have any control but you still get to complain and be angry when they do something you don't like. Until the masses accept adult responsibility and are mature enough to work together and disempower the wealthy elite who control them to suck their resources, nothing will change. History has shown us that socialism doesn't work economically because it is a corrupt system. It has also shown us that representative systems are corrupt as well, controlled by the power elite behind the scenes through the political parties. It's nice to think that this is a development of the last 60 years, but it's been going on since political parties were created a year after the first election.
The only collective power that can fix a corrupt system is the power of the masses. And the power of the masses cannot be unified until the masses mature beyond the entitled perspective of a child. Those with a child's perspective are easily manipulated.
I like your comment. I agree with your assessment of the collective i.e. moving past the perspectives of the child. Years of bad education or more accurately social engineering and indoctrination by committed secular religious socialism has left our kids and some adults in a permanent and immature childhood. there was a document that was created before or during the period of the rise of progressive at the turn of the century and it was called the American Creed. To wit:
"I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by
the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of
the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign
States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon the principles
of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots
sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its
Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against
Unfettered capitalism is absolute horseshit. Most billionaire philanthropy is also absolute horseshit. Also, it's interesting how you simply denounce socialism as failure and starvation without acknowledging that economic/trade Wars were waged against countries that tried to implement socialism. Do you really think that socialism in Venezuela would've failed if it were not for the sanctions (War) imposed (waged) by America and the rest of the 'free trade' capitalist countries? I'm not particularly for or against absolute 'socialism,' but three things I know for certain are: unfettered capitalism is complete and utter bullshit, the federal reserve must be abolished, and Revolution is fucking necessary. And believe it or not, we can create an extraordinary app for doing the peaceful revolution. Here's how: www.humbledeeds.com
What to you is unfettered capitalism? I agree billionaire philanthropy is worse than absolute horseshit it's criminal. They take massive deductions for underwriting activist terrorism and destruction of the social fabric. I don't think trade wars with aspiring socialist countries can are the underlying cause for their failures. The system it's self is a failure and when you are attacked by a stronger system the inefficiencies become most acute. Yes, it would have failed as whatever resource values would accrue to those who take power from the sleeping collective. What sort of revolution are you advocating, Lee?
This is an incredible essay that would make Ayn Rand blush.
A decent read but so full of holes and self justified philosophical errors as to make it impotent. It becomes obvious after the first few paragraphs it’s a sermon on the “evils of “We The People” and how “true freedom” is served by migration to the planets : whilst ignoring the one we’re on at present.
I couldn’t agree more with your analysis of socialism’s inherent contradictions. It's fascinating how you dissected the evolution of socialism, from its idealized “equality” to the practical nightmare that’s been inflicted upon countless societies.
I particularly appreciate your point on the moral argument for socialism... how it's not just an economic theory but a belief system.
I think what you mean is you are using the comment section on Lily for self promotion. That's Ok in my view however, your common bird seems not to have anything at all to do with the thoughts and feelings presented by Lily. What's your point? Where are the disconnects in her essay from how you view socialism and it's inherent falsehoods?. I thought it was well written, thought provoking and in keeping with Lily's postings. she's a great mind and writer. You are an aspiring poet it appears.
Dear Cosmo T Kat: I blew it. There is another article next to the poem, I think the previous one. Let me check [ . . . ] I am not totally sure which one I had in mind. Here is one of them: https://silverman.substack.com/p/how-corruption-wins
This way you can get something closer to what I had really intended. A little background: I am a theorist, however because I do not comport with the academic system now in play I remain alone and ignored. I have been on Substack about two (?) years. Early on, I ended up subscribing to "A Lily Bit." I always had the same reaction to it, of some disagreement with the superficiality of her view of the historical Left. So, in these two pieces maybe someone who cares would get the more nuanced view of it. I mention that, at one time, the "Left" was absolutely necessary because of the low behavior of human beings. Today, in my strong view, there is not any Left at all. That is completely over. These persons all the conservatives talk about are a totally new crew of hideous phonies, grasping after power, who emerged only after the actual Left had very much faded from public view. Some people, for example on quora.com, still maintain old leftist views but I consider them like a hobbyist club. Entirely irrelevant. And... thanks for reading the poem. P.s. the history of socialism's "inherent falsehoods" is a very interesting thing and I feel it should be given a better, more comprehensive treatment. It is a big intellectual puzzle, like so much else in this benighted world.
Thanks again, if I did not thank you already, for pointing out my mistake.
Another great piece. You said, "...those wealthy enough to be insulated from their own hypocrisy..." They are above getting their hands dirty in the day to day interactions to make a living because they can afford to. I observe this to be acquired-sociopathy precisely because of this isolation. They fall prey to the causes and claims of actual sociopaths because they lack the life experience to tell the falsehoods from reality. They carry guilt from not earning their inherited wealth when they know that others must do so. But they also feel superior for not having to do so. A combination of guilt and superiority that compels them to force conditions on others to make society's better taking their cues from those who are predators. Classic cognitive dissonance! Anyone say Rockefeller?
I think you must have been over the target with this one Lily to suffer your recent Substack strike. Finally I have been able to read it and contemplate: how can socialism, a fairly recent product seemingly of purely abstract academic educations, prove superior to the result of millennia of practical real life creative experience, augmented where appropriate with applied theory, that is authentic decentralised capitalism? Unfortunately, at this time too many of those in positions of power and influence over our lives seem to be products of purely abstract academic educations.
Abstraction can not feed us. Agreed!!
Great piece, although I do not agree with your analysis on socialism in Europe. We in Western Europe are deeply socialist countries and we are stagnating. Crumbling down, while our socialist leaders are trying to mask their failures by seizing total control by introducing digital passports and currencies. Don't be fooled by the numbers here, they are just as inflated as the ego's of our European leaders. Just look what happens when you confront them with some facts... 😉
Agree, Jeanette, many troubling aspects of the problems of top-down control, censorship, USAID-type slush funds and stagnation here in the US seem to be shared by Europe. We all need a deep DOGE cleaning! Here’s hoping some elections in Europe go that direction soon as well.
I have to add here that Norway seems to be the exception to the socialist rule of decline. However, three factors set them apart: 1) They are not part of the EU; 2) They have very little immigration; 3) They have a huge oilfield next door. The war in Ukraine made them very rich. Norwegians can afford to be socialists...
A very comprehensive and logical argument. Well done, as usual. In addition, I like to consider the emotional motivation for socialism. For the elite class, the motivation is control, control of everything as you explained.
But what's the motivation of the working class? It's not a philosophical or political argument for most people. I believe it's a desire to be safe and to be taken care of regardless of our efforts. We love the family ideal of getting to do whatever we want as kids and having our needs taken care of by a loving parent.
If only we had a president and a government that would do that, right? Isn't that what government is for? We put ourselves in the position of children in a parent-child relationship instead of peers in an adult to adult relationship in society. And in our emotional family construct, we are glad to do our chores to be taken care of but we believe that we are entitled to the same material benefits as our parents and our brothers and sisters. When they get more than us, it isn't fair. We should all share material benefits equally. The less we teach survival and responsibility and the more we enable dependency in each generation, the more this childlike entitlement grows. Self-sufficiency develops from real life challenges. We are a society of parents who enable dependency with many children who never become financially independent from their parents.
I think those are the emotional reasons behind whatever logic people use to rationalize their desire for socialism. They just want to be taken care of economically while they have the privileges of everyone else. What's wrong with that? It's the vision of a Star Trek utopia. A few, like spoiled children, want all of this with no contribution. But most are happy to contribute as long as they share equally and don't have to worry about any adult worries.
However, what we share as adults is the responsibility to survive and accountability for our behavior. Socialism, and most representative systems, allow those with power to take advantage of everyone else. The elite use political parties to control the government and support corrupt politicians who give the parties and hence, the elite, what they want. It's their career. How could they not serve their masters who put them there to stay in their career and their position?
It is a hierarchical power structure with many class layers. Unfortunately, the masses are at the bottom. Many things about being at the bottom aren't fair. And even if they are fair, they don't feel nice to us. We have to work to survive and we are responsible for our own decisions and survival.
You can be an adult and learn how to survive or you can be a child and look for others to take care of you while surrendering control to them. It's a nice position because you don't have any control but you still get to complain and be angry when they do something you don't like. Until the masses accept adult responsibility and are mature enough to work together and disempower the wealthy elite who control them to suck their resources, nothing will change. History has shown us that socialism doesn't work economically because it is a corrupt system. It has also shown us that representative systems are corrupt as well, controlled by the power elite behind the scenes through the political parties. It's nice to think that this is a development of the last 60 years, but it's been going on since political parties were created a year after the first election.
The only collective power that can fix a corrupt system is the power of the masses. And the power of the masses cannot be unified until the masses mature beyond the entitled perspective of a child. Those with a child's perspective are easily manipulated.
I like your comment. I agree with your assessment of the collective i.e. moving past the perspectives of the child. Years of bad education or more accurately social engineering and indoctrination by committed secular religious socialism has left our kids and some adults in a permanent and immature childhood. there was a document that was created before or during the period of the rise of progressive at the turn of the century and it was called the American Creed. To wit:
"I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by
the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of
the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign
States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon the principles
of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots
sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its
Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against
all enemies."
https://www.usconstitution.net/creed-html/
I thought this encapsulated who we are what we do to remain a free people.
Unfettered capitalism is absolute horseshit. Most billionaire philanthropy is also absolute horseshit. Also, it's interesting how you simply denounce socialism as failure and starvation without acknowledging that economic/trade Wars were waged against countries that tried to implement socialism. Do you really think that socialism in Venezuela would've failed if it were not for the sanctions (War) imposed (waged) by America and the rest of the 'free trade' capitalist countries? I'm not particularly for or against absolute 'socialism,' but three things I know for certain are: unfettered capitalism is complete and utter bullshit, the federal reserve must be abolished, and Revolution is fucking necessary. And believe it or not, we can create an extraordinary app for doing the peaceful revolution. Here's how: www.humbledeeds.com
What to you is unfettered capitalism? I agree billionaire philanthropy is worse than absolute horseshit it's criminal. They take massive deductions for underwriting activist terrorism and destruction of the social fabric. I don't think trade wars with aspiring socialist countries can are the underlying cause for their failures. The system it's self is a failure and when you are attacked by a stronger system the inefficiencies become most acute. Yes, it would have failed as whatever resource values would accrue to those who take power from the sleeping collective. What sort of revolution are you advocating, Lee?
This is an incredible essay that would make Ayn Rand blush.
A decent read but so full of holes and self justified philosophical errors as to make it impotent. It becomes obvious after the first few paragraphs it’s a sermon on the “evils of “We The People” and how “true freedom” is served by migration to the planets : whilst ignoring the one we’re on at present.
I think you should re-read.
I couldn’t agree more with your analysis of socialism’s inherent contradictions. It's fascinating how you dissected the evolution of socialism, from its idealized “equality” to the practical nightmare that’s been inflicted upon countless societies.
I particularly appreciate your point on the moral argument for socialism... how it's not just an economic theory but a belief system.
You just keep knocking it out of the park!
Excellent essay!
“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
…my only criticism is the misunderstanding of National Socialism,
which is common because “history is written by the victors.”
Great piece, Lily. Thank you.
A brilliant article. Thanks Lily, you explain everything so clearly.
Thanks for this series of articles bundled as a precious valentine gift - I hope in return you are thoroughly spoilt by your 'valentine!'
I was in agreement and okay with it for the first few paragraphs. After that not so much. I would like readers to check out my similar work. https://silverman.substack.com/p/a-common-bird?r=mxahf
Of course, I am "using" Lily. So, am I too a parasite? Interesting question.
https://silverman.substack.com/p/a-common-bird?r=mxahf
I think what you mean is you are using the comment section on Lily for self promotion. That's Ok in my view however, your common bird seems not to have anything at all to do with the thoughts and feelings presented by Lily. What's your point? Where are the disconnects in her essay from how you view socialism and it's inherent falsehoods?. I thought it was well written, thought provoking and in keeping with Lily's postings. she's a great mind and writer. You are an aspiring poet it appears.
Dear Cosmo T Kat: I blew it. There is another article next to the poem, I think the previous one. Let me check [ . . . ] I am not totally sure which one I had in mind. Here is one of them: https://silverman.substack.com/p/how-corruption-wins
And here is another: https://silverman.substack.com/p/the-general-rot
This way you can get something closer to what I had really intended. A little background: I am a theorist, however because I do not comport with the academic system now in play I remain alone and ignored. I have been on Substack about two (?) years. Early on, I ended up subscribing to "A Lily Bit." I always had the same reaction to it, of some disagreement with the superficiality of her view of the historical Left. So, in these two pieces maybe someone who cares would get the more nuanced view of it. I mention that, at one time, the "Left" was absolutely necessary because of the low behavior of human beings. Today, in my strong view, there is not any Left at all. That is completely over. These persons all the conservatives talk about are a totally new crew of hideous phonies, grasping after power, who emerged only after the actual Left had very much faded from public view. Some people, for example on quora.com, still maintain old leftist views but I consider them like a hobbyist club. Entirely irrelevant. And... thanks for reading the poem. P.s. the history of socialism's "inherent falsehoods" is a very interesting thing and I feel it should be given a better, more comprehensive treatment. It is a big intellectual puzzle, like so much else in this benighted world.
Thanks again, if I did not thank you already, for pointing out my mistake.