Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Why socialism, leftism, anarchy, etc. fail

Why socialism, leftism, anarchy, etc. fail
April 23, 2012, 03:57:37 AM
A culture of entitlement: if we are equal, I deserve good things just for being me.

Not only was my students’ writing appalling, but I soon encountered their resentment at being told about it. “Who are you to tell me I can’t write?” was the attitude — once expressed in those very words. More than one student insisted that her other teachers had always rewarded her with high marks for her “creativity.” Most believed themselves more than competent. After sitting with one young woman explaining the cause of her failing grade, I was befuddled when her only response was a sullen: “This doesn’t exactly make me feel good.” When I responded that my job was not to make her feel good, she stood haughtily, picked up her paper with an air of injury, and left my office without another word. In her mind, I later realized, I had been unforgivably cruel.

I was up against it: the attitude of entitlement rampant amongst university students and nurtured by the utopian ideology that permeates modern pedagogy, in which the imposition of rules and identification of errors are thought to limit student creativity and the fostering of a hollow self-esteem takes precedence over the building of skills on which genuine self-respect might be established. In the Humanities subjects in particular — and in English especially, the discipline I know best — such a philosophy has led to a perilous watering down of course content, with self-validation seen as more important than the mastery of specific knowledge.

With this philosophy has come a steady grade inflation. The majority of students in English courses today can expect a B grade or higher merely for warming a seat and handing in assignments on time.


You either reward greatness, or reward non-greatness. Whatever you reward, you get more of.

People claim they like natural selection, then act against it by insisting that everyone is equal.

Maybe market research shows that entitled people buy more things.

"You deserve the new iPhone, because you're you!"

That way people ignore the fact that they can't afford something or must go deeper in debt, but it is what they need to do in order to show they are just as good as everyone else.

Socialism, leftism, communism and so on - they're all forms of egalitarianism. In order to function, they have to assume that all humans are perfectly interchangeable cogs.

That is, obviously, not the case.

Conservationist, didn't I once see you mention that a conservative type of anarchy (IE - no govt to speak of, but people living in communes with common rules/laws) could work in small populations? I don't know if it was you but I think that's a fascinating idea. Has this type of government been practiced anywhere in the last century?

Human rights is an invention of loudmouthed journalists, political theorists looking for trips to the UN, and celebrities who are pushing pet causes.

Times change, and so does the catalogue of human rights designed to justify the prevalent political and cultural attitudes. It is impossible to separate the idea of human rights from the political agendas of those wielding this rhetorical weapon.

Concepts of human rights usually reflect the biases of the age. These rights are also replaceable. It is naïve to think those “rights to life and liberty” in the Declaration of Independence as understood by Thomas Jefferson are the only rights around which our political lives have been made to center. Terms such as “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness” have now been given meanings beyond anything that Jefferson—or the person from whom he cribbed the passage, John Locke—could have intended.

“Human rights” now encompass things such as wealth redistribution, protecting transsexuals from hostile glares, and banning all Confederate symbols—which a black student once complained violated her human rights when she espied a Civil War history book on my office shelf.


The Life of Julia -- how Obama promises to fix things for the subset of women requiring a Strong Man in their life but who don't have one.

 Is it just me or is there something fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of Strong, Independent Women and paternalism?


The left is perhaps like a scalene triangle with the capitalist and socialist at two points and anarchists at the third. The surface area for this shape is all the progress and equality common ground held between the three points. The acuteness or obtuseness at a given point's angle indicates degree of influence the nearest point has at the time.

In the 1950s for example, we might see the two points at the acute angles as capitalism and socialism, each of which were further from each other than from the third. Anarchy, in its obtuse corner, was least favored at the time and less of a competitor to either. The shape has of course shifted since.


Man that slideshow is just begging to be trolled.