The Problem With Bleeding Heart Liberals
Taken from a very insightful piece on Zerohedge, authored by Brandon Smith. “Leftists in particular have always had a problem with competition and it stems from the Marxist roots of their philosophy. There is this notion among lefties that the world is supposed to be “equal”. Now, there are different types of equality, and I think the majority of Americans agree with the idea of equal opportunity. Meaning, (at least in the West) we think every person regardless of their circumstances should be given the CHANCE to PROVE they can work hard and succeed. People should not be stopped from pursuing that chance merely because of who they are.
However, leftists and Marxists think that equality of opportunity is not enough. They think that there should also be equality of outcome.
This one delusion sits at the core of all Marxist thinking.
Equality of outcome is impossible because not all people are born equal. Some people are, frankly, born superior to others. Some people are born smarter. Some people are born stronger, taller and faster. Some people are born with innate musical or artistic talent. Some people are born with innate mathematical understanding. Some people are born extroverted and are good at making friends. Some people are born introverted and are better at self reflection and awareness. Some people are born to be basketball players and some are born to be engineers.
The psychological reality of mankind is that we are not born as blank slates; we are born with inherent qualities and the seeds of unique individual talents. Marxists suffer from a complete mental disconnect with this concept. If they were to admit that people are born with individual qualities and advantages and are not blank slates, then the foundation of their philosophy falls apart. They rationalize their social engineering agenda under the premise that all people need to be “molded” into equal units. They think people must be reeducated to reject bad beliefs and bad habits they were taught as blank slate children and learn to accept that everyone starts life out exactly the same. Therefore, the majority of people who succeed are those that were given an unfair advantage, and success should be treated with disdain and suspicion.
But if people have inherent psychological characteristics and inherent advantages, then their personalities and qualities cannot be reformed. Those “bad beliefs and habits” might actually be completely natural and necessary. You might be able to hold them back through force or fear, but you can’t change the core of who they are. If our biological and genetic imperatives prevail, Marxists become obsolete and useless.
The secret is to discover what your innate strengths are in life and take advantage of them to succeed. If you do not have innate talent, then you must at least have an innate ability to work hard. If you don’t have the ability and drive to work hard to become good at a thing, then you don’t deserve to get recognition for that thing. You are not entitled to feel like a winner merely because you exist. It’s really as simple as that.
The try-hard meme is basically the equivalent of excellence-shaming; you are supposed to feel ashamed of being better than others at a certain task or talent. I’m not sure where this hatred for competition comes from, but I suspect it has something to do with leftists and their early childhoods. Many of them are “late bloomers” who did not have many experiences winning, or they were never pushed by their parents to mature and excel. They grew to despise the idea that winning and success are so elevated in our society, while at the same time they still crave that feeling of being the best at something.
So, they adopt the Marxist creed, which tells them that yes, they are losers, but it’s not because they are lazy and they suck; no, they are losers because they are victims of a society that is holding them back from their true potential. Marxism tells them that the people who succeed were actually given special treatment because of their class or the color of their skin. The winners are actually very bad people who don’t deserve success. If only the system was forced to be more fair, then THEY would be the winners. Thus, in order for losers to “win”, they must join a mob of other losers and gain power through collective control. The successful people must be given an extreme handicap by the mob to “level the playing field”.
I think the Marxist ideal is leading these kids down a path of brutal delusion, because they are never going to achieve the Utopian society that they seek. The world will never be “fair”, and the idea that you can force such conditions upon a culture without serious consequences is childish and mentally unstable. Make no mistake, we are entering an era in which the facade propping up limp-wristed and weak people is falling away. When it comes to economic strife, crisis and survival, there is no appeal to equality. You’re in the jungle, baby, and if you have no merit, you’re gonna die.
The people willing to work hard and the people who seek to self improve are going to do well. The people that want a trophy just for participating are not going to make it.
By extension, trying to socially engineer our country to cater to the lowest common denominator would grind all progress to a standstill and make the crisis even worse. If “trying hard” becomes something to be ashamed of, or something that is punished, then there is no more incentive to improve or innovate or go beyond that which has already been accomplished. Our evolution ceases, and humanity stagnates.
While human competition has its ugly moments in history, at the very least it must be encouraged among individuals. It must continue to be rewarded. For if we start rewarding mediocrity it will be the exact opposite of the biological drives that keep us alive. It will lead to self destruction of the entire species.”
These people should be called what they really are: Socialists or Marxists …not Liberals. A true liberal philosophy is not Marxist or Socialist. So hows about we stop referring to them as Liberals (or Democrats), maybe the generic term “Socialists”.
Socialism does NOT work. It has been tried multiple times last century and failed. A good current example of failure is Venezuela.
The basis of socialism is the idea of equality of outcomes for all; and so the State has to control everything in the economy in order to try and make that happen. Problem is … corruption of officials and the bodies that stack up from those who dissent….and it all unravels.
The socialist idea of a utopia is a dream, that can never be achieved. The only outcome is dead bodies everywhere!
Agreed but, other than true libertarians, liberals are Dems and socialists and vote that way and try to impose their will and beliefs on everyone else. Libertarians, and conservatives and repubs (other than Rinos) believe in individualism. Leave me to make my own choices, educate my kids the way I want, worship or not on my own terms and not have govt. interfere in my(our) lives. Basis of Constitution and the Republic known as US of America.
Yes indeed. But all that is now being challenged, with socialism as the proposed solution to address the “inequality”
Chartmaster, love your essay.THANKS.
There are good points to this piece.
However there are some points being glossed over that I will probably come back to in the future that people should bear in mind. These are not my main point, but worth considering. First, leftists typically can’t stand liberals. “Liberal” is an insult word for hard leftists typically. Second of all it’s worth knowing that there’s an anecdote well known to those who have studied Marx a bit. There was a big meeting of some labor union, social democratic party, or some big conference where speaker after speaker kept invoking his name or “Marxism.” Afterwards he remarked with some sort of combination of contempt, disgust, and/or amusement, “I am not a Marxist.” One of his and Engels’s greatest contributions (which they did not always follow themselves) was an attack on ideology as ideology, as being something that hinders rational thought and action.
Now my main point. Many alternatives are not so good either. One looks at for example what happens when one gets money and power via somewhat traditional ways. Have the Brit Royals, the various big banking families, the various gateses or silicon valleyers gained the wisdom for benevolent rule? If they are as suitable as they think, are their progeny fit to rule? Or was it a matter that the nobility of old and early capitalists were hemmed in too much by the State or else there would be benevolence? Adam Smith for example was concerned about rent-seeking from the worthless profiteers and thought the State would have to step in to keep things in control because things were not in fact automatic.
In ancient Athens those who were citizens (obviously not the many slaves) at one point used sortition — choice of officials by lottery. That might be an option. Just this month I read the suggestion somewhere of seizure of wealth by lottery. I am personally not too impressed by royals or successful capitalists or any people who have lots and lots of power. I do not know what is the right way but I do think it is a discussion point and not one for ideology.
Though the piece has its points, it is overall largely wrong.
Liberals and many and in fact most leftists — certainly the pros and semi-pros — don’t believe in equality at all. They mouth it but they want to run things because only they know how to do it (in their minds) whereas the simple people, the masses, are to be manipulated.
There are exceptions. I could name some of them. Most are nameless. Some know exactly what is going on. Others merely sense it.
Karl, as usual you go off in a million directions. Of course liberals and leftists don’t Believe in equality. They don’t believe in anything. They use equality and any other argument, security, fear etc. because they don’t have any real world practical solutions for problems. Identity politics, division etc. Tear down, “Orange Man bad” etc. Where are their solutions? The piece was making very valid points. Don’t Overanalyze everything.
What are solutions is a question worth asking. I believe it can be turned around. Does one keep the current situation? Does one go back to some situation in the past, one that led to the current situation? Or what does one do? And if so, how? It is easy and pleasant to take potshots at easy fat targets without offering concrete solutions that are practical to reach from what is present here and now. Much as it is nice to fantasize some perfect communism it is a pleasant thing to describe some never-never land of perfect competition of perfect capitalists whose progeny never are stupid or try to corrupt governments etc. It is simple and to the point.
(Hard leftists of multiple factions loathe identity politics as reactionary by the way.)
Good response, Chartmaster. I would have used a much heavier hammer – so thanks for taking care of that.
“Of course liberals and leftists don’t Believe in equality”. Incorrect, they do believe in equality…Equality of Outcomes.
The only way to achieve this is to remove freedom of individuals to make their own informed decisions, because this means some will make good decisions and do well; and others to make poor decisions and do badly.
Individual freedom to act as a sovereign individual is what they believe must be destroyed; so that equal outcomes can be achieved.
If they studied history of socialism, or looked at Venuzuela, or the BLM, or Antifa: they would see the only outcomes are chaos, death and destruction.
LARGELY WRONG ? KARL I SUBMIT THAT YOU ARE LARGELY WRONG
THIS IS THE BEST INDISPUTABLE ESSAY ON THE TOPIC THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN.
IT IS LARGELY RIGHT
sheesh !
I don’t suppose many will like my comment but with regards to success or failure I have often thought that just plain luck had a lot to do with it.
Did I drink Crazy Juice for breakfast? Good thing I’m about to go out shopping for groceries!! Maybe my food has gone bad!!!
Here I go saying lots of liberals and leftists or at least their would-be leaders mouth Equality but don’t really believe it. Limousine liberals. People who want to be promoted on the basis of some sort of identity not work–entitlement. People who want to rule countries by diktat because they represent The People who will rule “the masses” because they feel superior to “the masses” because the masses supposedly aren’t able to rule themselves. Command economies by the few in the name of the many. These are different variations of ways in which many liberals and leftists make some pretense towards wanting “equality” but in reality want to rule or take advantage of others, typically “the masses”.
Different ways of pretension to equality while silently wanting to control the situation, generally feeling superior to others. I merely repeated standard lines of attack on liberals and “the left” . And I was attacked for it.
Rather odd. I suppose I need to work on mouthing the Party Line more appropriately and in a simplistic fashion?
No party line Karl
I took issue with saying this very lucent article was “Largely Wrong”
For me it’s the best piece ever on the subject and largely Right
Agree with Fully, its relevant and right enough it doesn’t warrant a head on challenge.
Re Karl’s point .. what to do … I’m on board the Officials by Lottery concept … rotating with Term Limits. Still need to solve the entrenched bureaucratic staffing issue (deep state), and lobbying. At some level, everyone is a pawn.
Have to say too, that we have capitalism run amok, so we have folks like Gates, Bezos, Zuck with megabillions. The problem is that capitalism works only if competitive forces are present to corral the mischief (mkt power). I would argue that M&A should be presumptively illegal, and that you must go through the courts for approval not the other way around.