Categories
Economy and social affairs

The intelligence ticks left

Why are the leftists on the rise again?

It is a strange contradiction:
Bolshevik and communist terror was responsible for around 100 million deaths in the 20th century due to its fanatical ideology. Wherever communist or left-wing socialist ideas prevailed and where they were able to seize government power - mostly by force - the states concerned regularly broke up or ended in oppression and economic chaos: in Russia, in the Eastern Bloc including the GDR, in Cuba, in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, in Vietnam, in North Korea, in Cambodia, in Latin America, in Africa, in Afghanistan. Much calamity also arose from the communist international and the communist parties not in power (1).

The crimes of the NSDAP are not included in this list. Because it is often suppressed that the Nationalsocialist German Workers' Party - despite all hostility to communism -, at least until the war, represented the interests of the workers.

The latest example of the failure of a socialist ideology is Venezuela. And South Africa, once the most modern and best developed country in sub-Saharan Africa, is on its way to the socialist poor house.

Doch die sozialistischen Ideologen sind unbeirrbar, haben stets neue Ausreden parat und kommen regelmäßig mit dem Argument, dass diese, bereits gescheiterten Versionen des Kommunismus oder Sozialismus eben nicht die richtigen waren. Die richtige Form wird dann von den jeweiligen Befürwortern, d. h. von den Propagandisten empfohlen. Wer diese Variation praktisch umsetzen sollte, kann sicher sein, auch damit zu scheitern.

Despite all these terrible experiences, the “left” ideologies - e. B. through the "Frankfurt School" - penetrated into television and radio stations, media, political parties, religions, schools, universities, newspaper offices worldwide, and even established, and even in the USA, which is decried as capitalist, leftist belief is on the advance. “Left” or “socialist” is misunderstood as social, which gives it good obfuscation and camouflage.

"You will not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You will not help those who have to earn a living by ruining those who pay them.
You will not create brotherhood by fomenting class hatred.
You will not help the poor by weeding out the rich.
You will surely get into trouble if you spend more than you earn.
You will not arouse interest in public affairs and enthusiasm if you deprive individuals of their initiative and freedom.
You can never help people in the long term if you do for them what they should and could do for themselves.
“     Abraham Lincoln

(Der genannte Verfasser dieser sehr treffenden Analyse ist nicht sicher)

A fundamental error
After the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, turbo-capitalism saw itself as the winner worldwide. Governments loosened legal restrictions on the capital market and allowed themselves a highly questionable financial policy with indebtedness that has now surpassed worst fears about a healthy economy. The social market economy that was once successfully introduced by Ludwig Erhard (1897-1977) under the motto “Prosperity for all” has been forgotten.

In the global market, national regulations often have to be circumvented, the influence of ethics committees, trade unions, philosophers, religions and other competent bodies on economic activity is only minimal, and the excesses of capitalist managers are rightly indignant to many. Contemporary left-thinkers take advantage of this discomfort.

The devil cannot be cast out with Beelzebub!

The curse of property
The Socialism is a philosophically based, apparently logical, intellectual faulty construction that gave hope to people who suffered from social misery that came about through human exploitation.

Surely you know the old GDR joke:
“In capitalism, people are exploited by people. In socialism it is exactly the opposite. "

(Internet)

The Concept of ownership on the other hand - which today's propagandists like to equate with capitalism - has grown historically, yes, “pre-historically”, out of practical necessity (see below.) It is theoretically and philosophically less secure and therefore questionable for many intellectuals. Buzzwords like “property is theft” are well received and even heard by a pope.[1]

Deshalb führt der kommunistische oder sozialistische Glaube  auch regelmäßig zu Enteignungen: Durch überzogene Besteuerung, direkten staatlichen Diebstahl, Inflation, Kürzungen der Sozialleistungen, Währungsreformen, usw. Bricht dadurch die Wirtschaft zusammen, muss der Staat wieder „helfend“ eingreifen, mithilfe seiner Bürokratie, die nicht gerade  durch weitschauendes, unternehmerisches Handeln aufgefallen ist. In sozialistischen Staaten findet man in der Regel etliche solcher Armut und Not erzeugenden Maßnahmen gleichzeitig.

The leap back into the Neolithic with an even distribution of wealth cannot of course work in the differentiated society of the modern age, even if it seems to be philosophically justified!

Making the "rich" poor does not make the "poor" rich!

The Concept of ownership is at the very beginning of a higher civilization:

Hunters and gatherers as well as recent hunters hardly knew our concept of property. They live in a more or less “communist” society in which much is shared and the personal property of the individual is limited to his clothes, jewelry and weapons. But at least property. The shelter, a hut or a cave, had to be shared with the group. Berries, fruits, insects, plants, mushrooms, game or roots belong to everyone and nobody. This works in primitive societies among people of the same kind with very similar needs.

In the "Neolithic Revolution", the transition to agriculture, that had to change:

A nomad must know his animals, can no longer share everything with everyone. Also, new competitive situations arise in the dispute over grazing grounds and watering places.

For a farmer, ownership of buildings, tools, cultivated fields, seeds, the harvest, etc. is essential for survival. It is shared with one's own family. This property as "working capital" must be protected and, if necessary, defended.[2]

Then the division of labor followed: farmers, fishermen, craftsmen, healers, shepherds, hunters, priests, etc. 

This “new” agrarian society inevitably diversified: Their respective property was distributed in increasingly complex ways over the long term. Also, people are not all very similar or the same for a long time - if they ever were. They have different skills (professions), there are unselfish and selfish, successful and unsuccessful, happy and unhappy, healthy and sick. With increasing inequality of people, their needs also diverge and an understanding consideration of the different desires and needs is required. Forced equalization breaks up or destroys a differentiated society. 

In societies that were not very highly developed, the socially disadvantaged were usually picked up by their clan; but the first questions about the now much-cited "justice gap" emerged.

Explanations for this were initially provided by the religions, which more or less succeeded in regulating coexistence through religious commandments and, up until modern times, to calm the majority of people with promises and threats from the hereafter to such an extent that traditional, monarchist, dictatorial forms of rule continue to exist 18th century and beyond to this day.

 Enlightenment philosophy challenged much of this; but their "categorical imperative"[3] could not establish itself as an ethical basis and could not replace the religious teachings that were losing influence.

A new paradigm
The unpleasant development of modern capitalism can probably also be attributed to fiat money [4].
Is it possible, as far as money is concerned, perhaps better with gold backing or with other legally binding restrictions on the currently almost limitless "increase in money" by printing bills?

In no case can our society and our economy without a generally recognized, obligatory Ethics permanent function.

In itself this has long been known! But well-intentioned attempts by the UN to formulate the ethical foundations for a peaceful, humane, democratic, ecological world order with the “Project Global Ethic” (2) or the “Earth Charter” had to fail because of the egoism of the states and their leaders which quite a few seem to relapse to the power politics of the princes of the baroque age.

The “modern man” will hardly allow himself to be dissuaded from his greed, his ruthless exploitation of people and nature by religious commandments, the threat of eternal damnation, philosophical guidelines or appeals from the UN.

So it seems inevitable to enforce the most important requirements through laws. But that can only be a questionable partial solution. Because laws are never perfect, they reflect daily opinion, cannot take future developments into account and can be challenged, interpreted and circumvented.

The right - currently still utopian - way would be for the large majority to come to the conclusion through their own insight that a lasting, harmonious and peaceful society can only emerge in ethically justifiable ways and that each individual must actively contribute to this ethic.

This conviction must be alive deep inside every human being!

Read also:
Under "Economic and Social" the contributions "Work to Survive"; Mission statements put to the test "; "Economic Crisis and World Conspiracy", „The equity gap„.

Literature:
(1) Courtois Stephane et al. "The Black Book of Communism, Piper, Munich, 1997.
(2) Bridges for the Future, Manifesto for the United Nations, Fischer, Frankfurt, 2001.

Endnotes:
[1] Pope Franciscus: “Not sharing one's goods with the poor means stealing from them. The goods that we own do not belong to us, but to them. ”(Quoted from Thilo Sarrazin“ Wishful thinking ”, DVA, 2016, p. 430). This is what the head of what is probably the richest organization in the world says!
[2] In the post "The Violent Man" this development is described in more detail.
[3] Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time want it to become a common good ”. (Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804).
[4] Fiat money has no reference to goods (e.g. gold), but is prescribed by the state as legal tender. It is widely accepted and adopted by the state for taxes and duties