I wrestle with the goodness of socialism
The narcissist vacuity of the socialist mind
I first encountered the work of Elle Griffin in the now retired Substack of M.E. Rothwell, the books that made us. You can find the archives of that Substack at Archive - Apocrypha.
When I read Elle’s post about Les Miserables, I was stunned by its vacuous narcissism, but when I took a closer look at her work in general, I realized that even vacuous narcissism can be made into a viable business model. Her frightening attitude clearly resonate with a frightening number of people.
The point of this post is not to badmouth
. She cannot help being herself.What makes her post so outstanding is that it is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the morals of the self-absorbed, woke, post-modernist left.
It is the degradation of the movement into delusional fantasies without any understanding not only the facts and realities, but even the most basic concepts of their own narratives.
As I pointed out in several posts, the ideas of Marx are not very smart, but they do have at least some coherence. There are good guys and bad guys. There is the proletariat and the bourgeoise. The elevation of one requires the elimination of the other.
Contrast this with the moral vision of Elle Griffin:
There is a basic quality of life that everyone is worthy of without condition. There is no need to prove your goodness in this world. No redemption arc necessary.
I long for that future. Because Jean Valjean shouldn’t have to be good for people to get fed. I shouldn’t have to be good for people to have homes. I don’t want it to be up to people like me—I can’t be trusted, I don’t think any of us can be. And I don’t think it should be up to our own benevolence to ensure the poor are fed, the homeless are sheltered, the orphaned are cared for, and the sick have a hospital bed. Must we rely on our own guilt, and the existential weight it imparts, to ensure the basic needs of humans are met?
We can’t!
That is why I’d much prefer the problems of humanity to be solved by governments. I’d rather my tithe come in the form of a tax. I’d rather our systems legislate how a tomato should be grown so I don’t have to make a moral call at the checkout counter. I don’t think people in need should have to wait around for people like me to be generous—that is an idle hope. Even when we aren’t selfish, we are unaware, or not paying attention, and I don’t think the of humanity should fall on our shoulders. I just want to be good, to be worthy of a good life—I want all of us to be.
I want people to be helped even if I’m not being good enough at helping them.
(all emphases mine) (and, btw, I do not correct the grammar of quotes)
Let me translate this before I get to the nitty-gritty.
In this neo-Marxist/neo-communist vision, nobody has any responsibility, while everybody has the right to claim the community’s resources. We can have whatever we need, without the obligation to offer anything in return.
Except, of course, unconditional acceptance of every decision of the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent government. In this virtue signaling idiocy, the lack of individual morality, responsibility and judgment is posited as the ultimate virtue. Submission, obedience and blending in with the sheeple is the ultimate expression of morality.
Elle wants a world where SHE can have everything without being bothered by some stupid expectations to offer something in return. She just wants to be good to be worthy of a good life.
I do not want to go too deep into analyzing the mess in the quoted section, but we should look at some of the highlights.
What is a basic quality of life? Who decides, and based on what criteria?
Who will pay for it and how much? The cost of living has a high variability depending on location. How can we imagine a system without answering these questions? For a drug addict, having an adequate drug supply is essential to his basic quality of life.How can everyone be worthy without conditions? The word ‘worthy’ is a qualifier. That is the essence of its meaning, that you must meet certain conditions to be considered ‘worthy’. If everyone is worthy, then nobody is.
In the real world, everybody’s worth is in-between.Is Elle serious suggesting that rapists and murderers are worthy without conditions? That biker gangs should be accepted without conditions?
How does she think governments can solve problems? What makes them worthy without conditions? Are they not composed of people that cannot be trusted?
What turns the untrustworthy humans into benevolent saints the moment they get elected or get a government job?
The neo-communist vision is nothing new. It is just a re-stating of Rousseau’s volonté general, where everybody agrees on everything in a loving totalitarian kumbaya.
In Hayek’s Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice, he offers a detailed explanation on the evolution of morality, both individual and public.
His position is diametrically opposed to Rousseau’s and Marx’s.
Morality, virtue and goodness are not static. They evolve with our societies. They govern our social interactions. They define and are defined by civil society.
We cannot exist without judging others and being judged by them.
Society cannot exist without our individual judgments.
Frederic Bastiat discussed in The Law our strange propensity of expecting governments to solve our problems (like Elle does). Giving power to people who are just as flawed as we are, expecting them to do a better job managing our lives than we can ourselves, while taking a good chunk of our money to do it with.
The funny thing about morality, responsibility, reasoning and decision making is that they are just like our muscles. If we do not exercise them, they atrophy. Morality is learned by practice. The only thing that can create a good society is the expectation on every one of its members to do good.
The greatest crime of the real communism was the killing of civil society and its institutions; the ones that were fostering moral behaviour.
In the end, not just socialism in general, but every single socialist project is doomed to failure as they all deliver the opposite of their stated goal.
The best book making this point is Charles Murray’s Losing ground.
The AFDC destroyed black families
Welfare programs create dependence
Regulations kill creativity and create monopolies
Public education is always worse than private
Socialized healthcare is a disaster in Both Canada and the UK
Social security makes people save less for their old age.
…and we could go on.
Virtue signaling, the declaration of moral sentiments is NOT moral behaviour, just narcissist exhibitionism.
Morality is not a difficult concept to understand. I’d say it is kindergarten easy:
…yet far too many still cannot get it.
What the communists of old wanted was the power to change the world.
What the neo-communist woke left is seeking today is safety. A feeling, not a behaviour.
Freedom from fear and responsibility.
Freedom from the need to be virtuous.
Freedom from the harshness of living.
They just want to be “worthy of a good life”.
They just want to own nothing and be happy.
Maybe the WEF was onto something.
Elle Griffin says that she read Les Misérables, but all references in her post are based on the musical, not the book itself.
I made a point not watching the musical or the movie based on it, as I detest the trivialization of classic literature. As I was writing this post, I decided to suffer through it just to confirm my suspicions.
I have just one last question: If Elle Griffin will get her wish, will she be unconditionally worthy of her Soylent green ration???
Like everything else on Substack, this is a reader supported publication.
You can help it by following or subscribing.
You can engage with it by clicking on like and/or commenting.
A ‘like’ costs nothing and is worth a lot.
You can help this Stack grow by sharing, recommending, quoting or referencing it.
You can support it by pledging your financial support.
Any and all of it will be much appreciated.
