the shell game of political labels – https://open.substack.com/pub/kronikole/p/what-do-you-mean-socialist?r=grh9a&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Most of the crumbling of the Western society is due to a simple communication problem: what people mean by liberal, conservative, and socialist. This is not trivial.

There are people – on Daily Wire, most notably – that call themselves “conservatives”. They 1) align themselves with Trump 2) believe that women belong in the home 3) call themselves Christians. I mean, this is a type of conservatism that stems from Reagan, who was a fictional character, created by William F. Buckley. Indeed, Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism not just electoral Republicanism but conservatism as a system of ideas respectable in liberal post-World War II America. How ‘bout that? But deep within this was also the creation of the “southern” “Christian” conservative, with emphasis on those origins. George Bush Sr., for example, was not an adamant Christian – he was an Episcopalian, which is part of the reserved, austere conservatism of the 20th Century. He was probably appalled by this messy religious stuff that his son (and Reagan) was spilling all over the conservative name.

Conservatism, in the classical sense, has to do with fiscal responsibility, and viewing the stock market as a giant casino. If you want to test someone for pure conservatism. you don’t ask them if they believe in G*d; instead, you ask them if they think Wall Street is a casino.

But I don’t care about this battle, between conservatives, right-wingers, Christian fundamentalist Republicans – after George H.W. Bush was gone, the GOP ended up being a scatter plot.

I’m more interested in the side that the conservatives – whatever they are – attack. We have multiple choice: left, liberal, socialist, democrat-socialist, liberal, democrat, Neo-liberal, neo-conservative.

Authoritarian socialism – a state the controls every aspect of your life – Pierre Poilievre

I was struck by an interview between Jordan Peterson, and Canada’s next (possible) PM, Pierre Poilievre. In their discussion, they came to a place of completely label spaghetti, which is what actually caused my to put my foot down, and write this.

JP explained that Canada has always had a socialist party – since the 60’s. This Party is called – here the confusion starts – the New Democrat Party – NDP. So, have to ask – are these actual socialists, or are the socialist democrats, like Bernie (and FDR) like to say?

Peterson goes on to describe Trudeau’s party, The Liberal Party of Canada, as having always been (what does “always” mean?) the traditional liberal party – which he describes as “stealing ideas from both the right and the left”, but what he now characterizes as comprising “far left socialists”. What the fuck does that all mean?

“Left” is confusing, generationally. I grew up in the 60’s in the US, where “left” was the Black Panthers and Abbie Hoffman – it was radical. But in the 50’s, it meant “communist”, and, in the US in the 50’s, “communism”, “socialism”, and “left” were all just bad things.

Nowadays, people who call themselves “left” are in no way radical – nothing like Angela P. Davis, who represented the Communist arm of the Black Panther Party. My G*d – play an Angela Davis speech for Kamala Harris, and she will cry! AOC would like to have the power of Angela P. Davis, and she may think that she does – but she doesn’t. And she calls herself (yet another term) “progressive.”

You may have missed the point when Bill Clinton started all this. When I fist saw him, I thought “centrist”. In no way was he stirring up the right side of the house – and in fact, he got in bed with them! He is singly responsible for turning the Democrat Party, into the the other half of Ralph Nadar’s Uni-Party: a bunch of elite, rich people taking donations (bribes) from Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Big. I would say that this slipped past 90% of Amurikuns, who called themselves “liberal”, which they take to mean “libertine” I think. Clinton was actually a student of Margaret Thatcher, who was the Goddess of Neo-Liberalism. Have a look for yourselves.

Now, for socialism, we have to go back to a hodgepodge of historical anomalies – but we won’t. We can stick with the top three: the “pink tide”, in South and Central America, as characterized by Castro; Stalinist Soviet Union, and Orwell’s socialism:

Orwell’s Political Ideology and Alignment with Trotskyism

While Orwell is best remembered for his criticism of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, it is essential to understand that he was, first and foremost, a committed socialist. Despite never formally joining a political party, Orwell was an active and vocal participant in the socialist movement. This may surprise those who associate Orwell solely with his critiques of state tyranny. Indeed, Orwell’s disdain for the left dictatorship did not extend to all forms of socialism, and his political writings often reflect an internal critique of socialist regimes rather than a wholesale rejection of socialist principles.

To me, this last bit is the most helpful. George Orwell was NOT critiquing socialism, per se. He was critiquing something which masqueraded as socialism, but was instead fascism, in disguise, which is what we see in Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party. (NAZI). And therein lies the collective memory of “socialism” – an authoritarian, totalitarian, described then as “far-left”? How confusing for our simple minds: I thought the “right” was for overlords and dictators?

And indeed, the suffocating rhetoric of the traditional news media in the US was all about Trump as Hitler, authoritarian, anti-democratic…. which is all just yellow journalism. The truth is in what Pierre Poilievre said to Jordan Peterson – he described the current “left” as “authoritarian socialism” – and that was a correction from his initial word choice of the “socialism”.

Because for Heaven’s sake – real socialism, of Marx and Trotsky is NOT authoritarian in any way. In principle, is is the demolition of the control structures of Capital, replaced by collective ownership of all goods and wealth. It’s textbook. But man, what happened when Castro started his mass executions (done by your here Che)? Truillo? The Sandinistas? Chavez? All professed socialists – all megalomaniac ruthless dictators, in competition with Idi Amin. And that impression of socialism is what we are left with. Except…

We don’t see it underlying the US Democrat Party or Trudeau’s Liberal Party of Canada. Yet Pierre Poilievre DOES recognize it – a little. He said it, referring to the Liberal Party of Canada. And unless you are blind, you can see that Trudeau has indeed tried to reign in tight control of every aspect of every person’s life – under the guise of liberalism? And can you see that as well in the US “liberal” regime – comprised of who-knows-who, but, you can get it includes the Clinton Foundation, the Obama Foundation…please tell me that those names don’t give you the slightest pause for reflection, as to how the Democrat government, at a minimum the DNC, is run.

So, socialism was intended to evenly distribute control among every citizen. Andrew Carnegie scoffed at that, saying that it went against the greedy, grubbing human nature – that people would NOT sacrifice anything of mine so that you can have yours. And he was right, clearly. We are all greedy pigs. All of us. So, how do you make socialism happen under those conditions? Well, the government has to intervene, doesn’t it, to force the individuals to do the right thing. And so equality is established, in “authoritarian socialism”, by rigid government control – not not oversight. No the control we are looking at now is social control – the control of society and individuals, using the same tried and true techniques of Hitler, Chavez, and, I’m sorry to say, Bill Clinton – but he just didn’t look or act like those other crazies, on the surface. And that’s my country: “Oh I liked Bill Clinton”. It’s about “like”.

Reminds me of Viktor Frankl’s description of the Jews being sent to the camps in cattle cars. When they arrived, the SS Officers went through, and very politely, asked for their coats, and belongings, to put in a safe place for storage. And those people, already in cattle cars, trusted these nice young gentlemen.

You got to wake up people. You are in a cattle car, and the end of the line is the end of the line.