As I have already pointed out several times, the philosopher is the sworn and implacable enemy of ideologies, and this has always been the case throughout history. Philosophers have always fought a war with ideologies, from which they could never come out victorious, but they could not do anything else because that was what their conscience dictated. Still, posterity remembers the philosophers.
If we look at the basic thesis of egalitarian ideologies, it is proportional public burden in some form, without privileges and privileged classes. It sounds really good, but what can be achieved from this? I think it is known that in the Middle Ages there were privileged classes that did not pay taxes, but collected, such as the clergy and the aristocracy. What happened after urbanization?
The ideologues, teasing the foolish masses, believed that if the privileges of these classes were abolished, the privileges would also disappear. Stupids. Today, the privileged class is just as present, only invisible. Today there are net contributors and net withdrawers just as there have always been in history.
The privileged are the winners of the system. Who are they? Those who do not pay any taxes, even though they are officially taxed. They are the class of bureaucrats who became billionaires by being civil servants on paper. In their case, what happens is that the state transfers the money from one pocket to another. Only the generated income can be taxed. But bureaucrats don’t make money, they just take it. So their income is paid from what they have collected from others in the form of taxes. And we are at interesting topic.
With the ideology of socialism, the desired classless society has arrived, where there are neither privileges nor privileged people. Well, that was one of the biggest lies of the twentieth century. Let no one believe that in socialism there are no rich people, they are the oligarchs, bureaucrats, cronies. The difference between those who got rich on the free market and the bourgeois of socialism is that while the former became rich through their work, talent, and diligence, that is, they created value for which people voluntarily gave their money, there is no question of volunteering in the latter case.
The capitalists of socialism became rich through the open appropriation and comfisection of resources, and their power is almost hereditary, similar to the Indian caste system.
So, what’s with this proportional public burden, and “let the rich pay more” nonsense? According to them, wealth and enrichment are only a sin as long as the person works for it? If, in the behalf of government, it is preyed upon in a disgustingly nepotistic system, is there no problem?
Now think about the level of meanness and hypocrisy on the part of egalitarian ideologies to punish that enrichment, which is the only ethical way to become rich. And at the same time make it possible for the violent collectors of the loot to get rich.
And in turn this slogan of class struggle is outdated not a hundred years ago, but much longer. Society is not a rigid static caste system, as paradoxically, socialist societies produce, but a constant variable. So the working class will become the capitalist middle class where this is allowed.
It is absurd that socialism and all kinds of egalitarian ideologies can only create what they theoretically fight against, a rigid, closed, feudal caste system based on birth privileges, with the total exclusion of the possibility of social movement. Would this be a “classless society”?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against greater equality, that’s why I’m anti-socialist. The standard of living of the poor cannot be raised in a sustainable manner by impoverishing those who have become rich through their own efforts.
Of course, the winners of socialism can become incredibly rich because of this, but, and this is ironically true of socialist terminology, which ultimately condemns itself, others, the majority, the masses, must become poor because of it. You can get rich only and exclusively in the free market economy not at the expense of impoverishing others, this is unthinkable in socialism.
Thanks for reading!