There is Nothing Social about Socialism

One of the great sins of Western civilisation today is the fundamental, systematic falsehood that pervades political and social discourse at all levels.  Mendacity is the mark of our times.  This civilisational prevarication goes far beyond the day to day lies told by individuals, and even exceeds the institutional untruthfulness of the lugenpresse.  It extends to the very vocabulary in which our discourse is conducted.  The very words which we are required to use if we wish to even be understood by our fellows in society require us to implicitly affirm that which is not actually true.  To refer to “social justice” is to describe something which is neither.  To use the American political terms “liberal” and “conservative” is to ascribe traits to those who don’t believe in freedom and to those who aren’t conserving anything, respectively.  Likewise, we are required to refrain from using certain absolutely and exquisitely descriptive terms because of the false connotations which progressives have succeeded in attaching to them.

Western, and especially American, society is in sore need of the application of a principle articulated by Confucius called the “rectification of names.”  Confucius recognised that words can be systematically used to portray falsehood, and therefore to distort our perceptions of reality.  When such a thing happens, when we fail to call things by what they really are, social disorder and even chaos can erupt.  He observed in his Analects,

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”

Confucius’ insight here is that discord of language indicates discord of soul and in turn leads to discord of society.  The superior man seeks to “rectify the names” by ensuring that what a word means and how it is used are in accord, not simply at the level of vocabulary, but even more so at the higher level of its connotations within social discourse.  To intentionally obfuscate the meaning of words meant for social use is to become an enemy of civilisation itself.

This is why any thinking individual ought to take exception to the term “socialism.”  This term is entirely undescriptive while also being intended to suggest a meaning for the hearer which is not in accord with reality.  Simply put, there is nothing “social” about “socialism.”  Yet, both progressives and conservatives consistently present this term as accurate.

Progressives use the term to describe a set of policy proposals – and the ideological assumptions underlying them – which they intend to present to their audiences as being “for the people,” hence the term “socialism,” as if to give the appearance of broad based concern for and support from “the people,” from “society.”  However, progressives confound “society” with “government.”  The two are very definitely not the same thing.  Even in supposedly democratic systems, when the government does something, it is not to be confused with “society” pursuing a path of action.  Indeed, many of the things we see in our nation which the government does routinely find little actual support in society itself.  It is telling that practically all of the “victories” that the homosexualists have “won” in America have come through the courts – even in bright blue California they were unable to win at the ballot box.  Progressives use the term “socialism” as a catch-all to lend imagined support to their unpopular policies, implicitly warning dissenters that they’d better keep quiet since “society” – all those other people around you – want this “for the little guy” and you’re in the minority.

Yet, this assumption that “socialism” is social is false.  Instead, progressives are the great destroyers of age-old traditional social institutions, and have been since the execrable French Revolution.  There is not a single organic social institution – not church, not männerbund, not family, not local community, not private club or business – that the progressives have not sought to destroy, to grind into atoms and feed into their culturally marxist power grid.  Progressives will not tolerate armed citizen militias patrolling their own communities to ward off Black Lives Matter rioters.  Progressives will not countenance churches or businesses refusing to bow before the Almighty Fag as he demands their cakes and their doctrinal loyalties.  They seek to break up all these regressive old institutions and replace them with themselves, and only themselves.

Progressivism does not grow organically.  It can only be imposed from the top down, hence the progressive desire to usurp the positive indicator “social” for their non-social ideology.  Progressivism requires a police state, the power of government to impose what a natural society will not naturally do.  Jacques Ellul noted this as the case for any system which must be imposed from above,

But such organizations could be maintained only by police power, whereas the exact opposite is true of genuine social organization.  By the very fact of its existence, coercion demonstrates the absence of political, administrative, and juridical technique…” (The Technological Society, pp. 29-30)

In organic societies, the means of organisation – how the government is constituted and operated – grow and evolve through centuries of traditional usage combined with the necessarily slow process of experimentation with emergent forms that arise through the society’s internal operations of self-assembly.  This is a mechanism that is completely absent in progressive regimes, which instead seek to replace genuine society with total subservience to government, eliminating all intervening and competing sources of authority and loyalty.  Genuine social society does not need to have change forced upon it from the top down.  Change will come in measured doses as society moves in directions appropriate to its current state.

In the progressive process, the individual member of society is completely unmoored from all traditional communal institutions and is thrown at the mercy of uncaring, deep state bureaucracy.  The cult of perpetual revolution tears down all alternatives of community and subjects the individual to the atomisation of total government where he becomes simply a number, a resource to be utilised, with no life or thoughts of his own.  While I generally don’t have much use for her writings, the depiction of the planet Camazotz in Madeleine L’Engle’s book A Wrinkle in Time is most a propos.  On this planet, every individual was under the psychic control of an entity known as IT.  Each person on the planet was subjected to the same regimen to the point where children at play would bounce their rubber balls in perfect accord with the each other in time with the throbbing psychic pulsations of IT.  One child who broke the pattern and who bounced his ball counter to that tempo was quickly hustle inside by his fearful mother – an indication that the child would probably be punished by IT’s police forces should he be observed breaking the pattern.

In such a situation – which is not conceptually far from that found in progressive regimes from Cuba to the Soviet Union to North Korea – the progressives use the appearance of conformity to usurp the label “social.”  However, conformity is not community.  An aggregation of atomised individuals all acting and speaking the same way because they are forced to by their government is not at all the same thing as an organic community of interconnected individuals who share the same traditions and culture and mores.  Applying the terms “social” and “socialism” to the progressive scenario is a gross corruption of those terms.

It has been consistently observed that once progressives establish control, they will eventually begin to eat their own.  After the French Revolution, the increasingly splintered factions of the Jacobins started to behead each other once they ran out of aristocrats to murder.  After the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks started filling their new gulags with Social Democrats and Anarchists and Mensheviks and Revolutionary Socialists and all the rest of their other former allies.  This is because, ultimately, progressives completely lack a genuine community or social spirit, and are instead seeking each one his own individual advancement within the police state’s apparatus, forming ephemeral alliances with other individuals before betraying or being betrayed in turn.

Hence, the great irony of socialism – of the abhorrent revolutionary spirit unleashed upon the world by the Jacobins and given direction and a philosophical basis by Marx and Engels – is that it completely destroys genuine social collaboration and replaces it with a pulverised mass of individuals who either die as atoms or else kill as atoms, depending on whether they stand outside or inside the police state’s artificially-imposed contrivance.

If we wish to successfully “rectify the name” with respect to that thing called “socialism,” then we must understand that it’s not merely a matter of outward terminology.  It’s not only about the verbal word used to denote the progressive ideology and intentions.  Rather, we must acknowledge that the connotation is completely wrong as well.  Socialism contains nothing social about it, but is instead social, institutional, and personal nihilism.  The implied falsehoods that are inherent in the progressive use of this term, especially when they use it in a “positive” fashion to present an outward appearance of being “for the people” and “for our communities,” must be identified and exposed.  Until we grasp this truth, we can never truly deal with socialism, or the progressives who promote it, in a way that will effectively combat its corrosive effects on our social health and cohesion.

13 thoughts on “There is Nothing Social about Socialism

  1. Much the same set of observations can be made of nationalism, and of the extreme forms of racialism, as well. In any case, all of these ideologies envision the social exclusively in terms of some attribute individuals have in common (common dependence on the State for the progressives, common genetic make-up for the racialists, etc.), and not in terms of actual social ties between individuals.

    We need a new word for these ideologies- “pseudo-communalism” or something like that.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi DS,

      Re: nationalism – it depends on how someone is conceptualising the term, I think.

      I am very much in favour of nationalism – but the way I view the term is a bit different, I think, from the way many in the alt-Right use it. I see the basis of the “nation” as conforming to the biblical word “ethnos.” This refers to a group of people who are united by common culture, mores, language, usages, etc. As such, it obviates the outright “racialist” connotation of the term, since people of different races or ethnicities *can* adopt the culture of a dominant group within a geographical expression we call “states,” either through immigration followed by assimilation, or else by some other fluke of circumstance which causes them to be raised within a culture different from the one they would normally have been raised in.

      Case in point, I have a friend who is now a missionary in India who is Indian by race, but was adopted by a Christian family in Wisconsin when he was an infant. Frankly, he is as American as I am.

      However, I also do recognise that such cases are fairly rare, and that cultures *do* generally tend to be shared by people with the same genetic heritage, simply because people tend to marry other people with whom they share cultural, linguistic, religious, etc. ties. As a result, cultures DO tend to be perpetuated down racial or ethnic lines, though the genetics do not actually determine the culture, unlike how many “white nationalist” types tend to believe.

      Simply put, there’s nothing about the Anglo-Saxon genetic code, in and of itself, that makes Anglos hold to Anglo culture, for instance.


      1. You make a very salient point about nationalism.

        As I read this piece, what came to mind was the difference between the neighborhood I was raised in, and the one I presently reside in. Home was culturally homogeneous. The values of my parents were amplified by both peer group and school teachers. There was never any ambiguity about expectations. As a consequence, people were happy. I knew every kid my age on the street; we would “open carry” a 22 rifle down to a patch of woods to shoot at a target. No one thought anything of it and no one ever got shot. Getting off track a bit; no one was on anti-depressants or anti-psychotics and perhaps that is significant. My parents were on a first name basis with everyone on our block. They socialized regularly and were the people we took family vacations with every year. The crime rate was absolute zero, and even teenage shenanigans were comparatively tame. Hey, if you wake up Mrs.Clinker at 2:00 am trying to sneak through the back fence; your mom is never going to hear the end of it (neither are you!). So, maybe you only shotgun four Milwaukee’s Best (Beast) instead of ten. Women were respected. They were wives and mothers there to greet you after a bad day with a pleasant smile and sandwich. They never left the house looking anything but there best, and were polite to the extreme. That produced a high school filled to the rafters with “quality women”. We were gentlemen in return. Yes, boys will be boys. But, I recall being slightly under the influence one evening when I was seventeen or eighteen, and dropping the good ol’ f-bomb in a prepared joke to that year’s girl of my dreams. As soon as It left my lips, it felt like I had committed a crime; saying something like that in front of a woman. Around other guys sure, but to a woman? Never. Sounds like a century ago, but it was the 1990s.

        Fast Forward to 2016. I live in an area where the only thing homogenous are the houses. One looks nearly identical to the other. The occupants do not. We have “diversity”. The proportion shifts because of the large number of rental units, but in the last four years the demography has been about 30% Hispanic and 5% Black. We have crime, and a fair amount of it. A house down the street with two revelrous black women caused most of it. They threw a party, and the rest of us just hoped for the best. Sure you could call the cops, and beg them to come shut up the neighbors in the middle of the night (on a Wednesday), but they rarely came. The Hispanics are genuinely resentful of the blacks, and not shy about it. The guy next door is Dominican; nice as can be. And anytime he talks to me; he uses language about the Blacks that even my staunch segregationist grandmother would have thought twice about. Kids don’t play in the street, and no one socializes. There are friendly people, like my neighbor, but you never get to know them well. I’ve lived next to this guy for years, and I don’t even know his wife’s name. There is zero social trust, no male bonding, and the women..well. We have more than a few single moms. They are typically broken, resentful alcoholics who spew hatred every chance they get. Most of them drove their men away my wife tells me. They all seem to have a carousel of “boyfriends”. I pity their children because they will probably turn out the same way. The schools; forget it. My youngest does paper mache projects in math class. It’s a joke.

        What happened in the last 16 years? Socialism that’s what. And look what it wrought.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Hi JC,

        Yes, the phenomenon you describe is definitely a real thing. Steve Sailor has had a lot to say about the homogeneity versus diversity in neighbourhoods. Basically, the more diversity you have, the less you have of things involving social cohesion, trust for your neighbours, willingness to work with neighbours for common goals like building playgrounds or picking up trash, etc. Indeed, this phenomenon is actually quantifiable. More diversity equals less trust and less willingness to do things for your neighbours.

        This seems to be a universal and natural human response – we just tend to prefer people within our own groups to those who are without. This certainly does not imply that we need to hate people outside our own group, obviously. But it DOES confirm pretty strongly the fact that nations in the “ethnos” sense of the term are a real thing, not just a “social construct,” and that there is a principle in operation which tends to divide people along these ethnic lines to keep them from working together (i.e. Genesis 11).


  2. An outstanding analysis. This phenomenon is also revealed in the need to constantly update acceptable newspeak, driven by the requirements of virtue-signalling as well as the erosion of meaning which occurs under leftist tyranny. As you noted as well, every committed leftist I’ve ever met has been a clawing careerist at heart. Really enjoy your take on things, thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Moses,

      Thanks for the comment, and thanks for dropping by!

      Virtue-signaling – that’s a good point. To the extent that “progressives” can be said to have a culture, it is the one of stamping on the other to show that you’re better than them. That was the constant history of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union – you had a rival who was getting too powerful, you had to signal your even more absolute devotion to the Party, while signalling their failing, hopefully getting them tossed in the gulag, or even shot.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Buddy… you’re a half-clever, wordy, fuckin’ nutjob. Conservatism and what passes for conservative capitalism almost destroyed the family, the family farm, marriage and the traditional parent definition a dozen times over until it was rescued by the progressives. It if were not for the progressives, the workers would have followed suit with the Commies and burned the place to the ground during the depression. Progressives actually conserve traditional values while the destructive elements of the so called “free market” which is not actually free but hi-jacked by a small number of industrialists constantly put them at threat. And you’ve signed on for a few bucks… congrats..


  4. You remind me of the high minded radio shows that started popping up in Germany offering complex social theories condoning oppression of non-Arians and the natural order of things… that’s right… you are one of those guys…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s