Karl Marx theorized that socialism was a next evolutionary step after capitalism, intended to destroy and supplant capitalism, and set the stage for the emergence of communism. This “next step” belief suggests that socialism is a more advanced form of governance, a system that’s more responsible, more beneficial to the success of its members, and more “adult.”

The reality, however, is that it’s the politics of a child. Born of complaint, laziness, and covetousness for that which others have, bereft of any consideration of consequences or subsequent effects, and utterly dismissive of coerciveness, as long as the advocate is among those who benefit.

Charles C. W. Cooke, the editor of National Review Online, offers an anecdote about an Occupy Wall Street activist, clad in a cardboard box with slogans written on it, who was espousing direct democracy as superior and a remedy to every other form of governance ever tried. Democracy, wholly unfettered, with no restrictions on what the majority voted for. As Cooke suggested, that majority could “nationalize the banks or abolish private property or bar all international trade or invade Brazil and harvest its resources,” without any fetters or restrictions, such as those that currently exist in the form of our Constitution. The guy in the box spoke of democracy, but Cooke noted that it was clear he expected it to produce socialism.

The guy in the box makes the “politics of a child” reality crystal clear. He wants democracy, but he fully expects that it will produce the results he wants and not the contrary. He expects, nay, presumes that the majority sees things his way, and therefore figures he’ll benefit, personally, from his system. AND, he’ll have to expend less effort. Socialists purport to love Marx’s maxim “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” but in practice ignore the ramifications of the “from” clause, and substitute “want” for “need”in the “to” clause.

In short, selfish and lazy – the things parents spend years trying to teach their kids not to be.

This prompted recall of a bit from another article, that one in the New York Post, one regarding allegations that New York City’s Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza is engaging in discrimination against high-level Department of Education executives who happen to be white. From the article, quotes from one supervisor on what’s being ‘taught’ by consultants:

“There’s been a lot of discussion of white supremacy and how it manifests in the workplace, conversations about race, and looking at how the white culture behaves,” said a white executive who received the training.

“White supremacy is characterized by perfectionism, a belief in meritocracy, and the Protestant work ethic,” the exec said, adding that whites who object when accused of deep-rooted bias are called “fragile” and “defensive.”

I am old enough to have attended junior high and high school in an era when wood shop was still offered. Our shop teacher, Mr. Vey, also taught various other arts, including calligraphy, and his shop was festooned with calligraphic signs he had made. One such told us:

Good enough is not good enough. Make it perfect.

Strong words that creep into my mind whenever I’m working a project.

Do I always honor them, literally? No. There is the concept of engineering tolerances, there is the reality of diminishing returns, there is the truth of fitting something to the parameters of its intended use (and longevity). However, that’s not the real message of the slogan. It’s about not copping out, it’s about not using “good enough” to excuse laziness.

Another sign read:

Good, better, best. Never let it rest. Until your good is better and your better is best.

The message is the same: Don’t cop out, don’t be lazy, don’t settle for insufficiency or mediocrity.

Google tells me that quote is from St. Jerome, which, I’d imagine, would be grounds for dismissal by the aforementioned consultants, since it’s born of white European culture (Jerome was born somewhere on the eastern side of the Adriatic and lived his life in Rome), and given their views on perfectionism and the rest.

That these education consultants would not only choose to denigrate work ethic, perfectionism, and meritocracy, but do so by conflating them with oppression, should shock the conscience.

You know what else should shock the conscience? The assertion that these traits are the product of an oppressive white culture. This directly suggests the horrid and offensive old stereotypes of minority laziness and inadequacy. This is the message of the Best-and-Brightest? That working hard in pursuit of success is incompatible with being a minority in America???

A capitalist system is a meritocracy. It rewards hard work and the pursuit of perfection. To denounce the system, and favor its replacement with one where a majority gets to take the fruits of a minority’s efforts, is to reject those elements. That which would replace them is the child’s “I want it!” whingeing, which stands without care for how the want is fulfilled, nor its cost, nor its adverse consequences, nor the behavioral impetuses it fosters.

This is what the socialists, excuse me, the Democratic Socialists, are selling: the satisfaction of children’s whines. Worse, they’re teaching people that opposition to this is itself born of oppression, racism, and racist oppression. That they’re not only unabashed by the atrocity of their message, but actually proud and aggressive in their delivering it in their pursuit of power, tells us who and what they are.

They should be the last people on earth to whom we grant a shred of authority.

Peter Venetoklis

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.


Like this post?