Double standards are a hallmark of socialist movements.
The infamous “community organizer” Saul Alinsky established their tenets simply: “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty.” And in their hypocrisy, they extend this tenet to their cohorts, under Alinsky’s rule to “never strike left.”
Because of this, a politician can loudly claim to oppose racism in all forms, yet turn a blind eye when a member of his own camp is exposed as a racist. A basketball star can claim to oppose oppression, then defend state oppression in the next breath. They can march in lockstep, crying foul about all the wrongs of the world, while ignoring the wrongs in their own camp.
It all comes down to the sins of the fathers. In Western religion, this goes back to the story of original sin, the temptation in the Garden of Eden, and the curse from the Tree of Knowledge. It holds that man is born into sin, and that through baptism and repentance, we may find redemption.
The socialist religion also holds that people are born into sin, but the extent of this sin is determined by the color of each person’s skin, their gender, and how closely they follow the traditions, or “old ideas,” that socialism seeks to eradicate.
Rather than believing that people can repent and improve themselves to overcome original sin, socialism holds that white people should be forever guilty of historical slavery, men should be forever guilty of patriarchy, and the wealthy should be forever ashamed of their own gains.
Yet they offer their own form of repentance: getting “woke.”
To be forgiven for politicized sin, the socialists must proclaim their hatred of who they are. The white person must proclaim their hatred of “white privilege,” the man must proclaim his hatred of “toxic masculinity,” and the business owner must announce his opposition to “capitalism.”
After being born again through this political baptism, they’re no longer held accountable to the narratives of their camp. By proclaiming their wokeness to the church of the state, they are granted absolution from all political sins past and present—just as long as they continue to voice their hatred of all they once were.
Socialism is very much a theocratic system. In its destruction of God, it aimed to replace God; and in its destruction of morals, it has looked to create a new morality. The statist theocracy now rules, and those who sit in its pews can preach to their masses about how they, too, were once lowly sinners in the ever-changing crimes of political correctness.
History is merely repeating itself, regardless of how the adherents to this state belief try to separate their “new” socialism from the tyrannical history of the “old” socialism.
Thomas Molnar explained this principle in his book “Utopia: The Perennial Heresy,” saying that in every practical regard, socialism functions as a theocracy. And to guard its forced theocratic rule, it demands that all beneath proclaim their enthusiasm: to speak their wokeness, lest the unclean elements of society should rise up in revolt.
Theocracy, Molnar explained, “may never relent, for, as long as danger exists—and the very absence of enthusiasm for theocratic rule is interpreted as danger—the repressive force may not relax. Wielders of such force must be shown proof that their subjects, candidates for perfection, live in a permanent state of enthusiasm.”
And because danger to such systems will always exist, he explained, “the elect will insist on regular enthusiastic demonstrations of consensus.”
He adds, “Under Communist regimes, for example, the individual may not simply retire into silence; he must enthusiastically speak, write, approve, and proclaim louder than the next fellow.”
Of course, socialism has no problem contradicting its own principles—and this has held true for leaders of its systems and ideology from the get-go. Pol Pot killed the intellectuals but was an intellectual himself. Marx hated the bourgeois class, of which he and his aristocratic wife were a part. Lenin killed the peasants to protect the working man. And Mao destroyed belief to create consensus for his own.
The vague political goal always shines on the horizon, and the socialist tyrant points to it, claiming that we can reach it tomorrow, if only the privileged elements of society could be destroyed today. Tyranny and oppression then become the tools to destroy “oppression,” and through their contradictory double-think, the socialists believe that through their own tyranny, they’ve fought tyranny.
Molnar explains that this contradictory thought—and the demand in socialist regimes that all “true believers” demonstrate their enthusiasm for its principles, lest they fail to be absolved of the past—is part of the ongoing hypocrisy that has always plagued socialist Utopianism.
Molnar explains, “The same paradox characterizes all Utopian thinkers: they believe in unrestrained human freedom; at the same time, they want so thoroughly to organize freedom that they turn it into slavery.”
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.