X Marx the Socialist

Have you ever been in the trying situation in which you are put in charge of two fighting children? Eventually, you may realize there is more you need to stop than squabbling- you need to keep these kids from MURDING EACHOTHER! Now, the last thing you should say is "shut up and play nice! Just love each other!!!" No, no, no. That does not- will not- ever work (this is me speaking from experience). Just as you can not force two children to play nice, you can not force human fraternity.

 Leszek Kolakowsk's article What is Left of Socialism? explains that "There has never been, and there will never be, an institutional means of making people brothers." I agree that no man can make a society sit around a campfire and sing "Kumbaya". Everyone has differing beliefs. It is that very diversity that makes capitalistic societies more prosperous than socialist societies.
 
I do not pretend to understand all of Marxism, socialism, and communism. However, I will elaborate on my understanding of the concept based upon my reading of Kolakowsk's article.

Marxism (the economic and political theories of Karl Marx) is important to know about because it is the idea that paved the theory and practice of communism, which is still in operation today in Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and China. It is for this reason that Karl Marx's ideologies are essential for us to comprehend.
 

It is also important to be enlightened on these communist theories in order to not repeat them. Some people may unwittingly long for the economically stagnating order of government that is socialism.


Socialism leaves no room for diversity and prosperity. As Leszek put it, "Marxism knows only one cure for monopolies, and that is a  single  monopoly." In every Utopian society ever imagined, a dictatorship simply must ensue. There is no other way for everything to be "perfect" because perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Since each person is different, every "beholder" will have a differing interpretation of what society should look like. Hence, anything other than an authoritarian government collapses upon itself.

It is in this way that socialism is, as Kolakowski says, a "tantamount to a kingdom of lies." Lies always have an interesting appeal to them. In some way or another, they will try to make themselves attractive enough to creep their way into the minds of the masses. "College should be free." "Abortion will protect woman's rights." "Love is love." "Offensive people should not speak." Sound familiar? Do not be deceived and eat this chocolate coated... donkey doo. 

 

Yes, with differing beliefs we may seem to constantly be at each other's throats. Tell me, though, what is worse? To be at odds, yet have the freedom to express ideas of our own or to be forced to "play nice" yet have no diversity of opinions or increase of ideas and economic successes?

I admire Karl Marx in the sense that he was excellent at voicing what he believes. At the same time, I am grateful that I am able to read his works with a filter of understanding what is better for society as a whole which is the freedom of individuals to grow in the way they choose to.

Theory of Relative Rights

Snakes, as cold-blooded animals, can not regulate their own body temperature. As a result, when they get too hot they become disoriented and eat themselves. Similarly, liberals will riot against, shame, and cause destruction to the very people that advocate the values and ideologies they claim to uphold.

CNN's article "Milo Yiannopoulos is trying to convince colleges that hate speech is cool" calls Milo a hatemonger and even suggests he is a white nationalist. Of all the people for liberals to be triggered by, it is Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo, the gay, libertarian, Catholic journalist of Jewish descent (sweet, mercy!).

The reason for all this outrage is due to Milo exercising his first amendment rights in the form of speech seminars. Hmmm, free speech... Is that not something the left will jump to defend when it come to the Black Lives Matter movement or a feminist protest? Why is it that everyone who expresses opinions differing to the left are considered Nazis? 

The simple answer is that, to liberals, rights are relative. They decide what is good and bad based on their opinions. Which is somewhat impressive considering how low their standards are. They set the bar on the ground and manage to dig a hole to get under it. They have dug so low that they have fallen into a pit of hypocrisy stew which they marinate in. 

For example, liberals are notorious for supporting the LGBT 

community, yet welcome Muslims into the U.S. with open arms. "Progressives" advocating Muslims, followers of the Quran (which commands them to kill homosexuals), put themselves in a state of irony and confusion. This is why when the Orlando shooting took place, all liberals could do is scratch their heads and blame firearms for the horrific misdeeds of terrorists. 

The left calls Milo "dangerous", but what is dangerous to the left? If not terrorist attacks, what? The danger to liberals is a hint of Christian virtue. The blaze helps shed light on humanitarian hypocrisy by stating "liberalism is nothing more than a protest against Christianity. It hates what is Christian and embraces or tolerates whatever is not."

This is how they constantly manage to contradict themselves. They have no morals, they just hate ours. They fear the Bible so much that they are willing to advocate anyone who blatantly opposes it. 

I have recently written a blog explaining that if you have no definite moral standards, any moralistic judgment you make is just as justifiable as it is meaningless. The left hates the idea of one divine deity because if the people choose to follow that creator, they will stop bowing to media, pseudoscience, and other ridiculous propaganda. 

What Milo has stated, that liberals can not simultaneously support "Syrian refugees" and the LGBT community, has been said repeatably before. The difference now is that the words are coming out of a homosexual's mouth. Now they hear this being preached but still do not receive the message. 

In a fit of anger and confusion, the snake of liberalism attacks Milo and, as a result, is revealed as illogically hypocritical, attacking itself. This is a snake who's beliefs say "don't tread on me... unless you can justify doing so with your worldly opinions."