When a Socialist Leader Goes Too Far...

Ok, let's take a moment to talk about Socialist leaders who are hailed as the leaders of the free world and those who create equality, diversity and a better society.

Is that really true though? In some ways yes, in other ways not.

Socialism, as explored in other posts, is about shifting the balance of power to apparently create equality within an unequal society. Though, in reality, it's forcing change regardless of any oppositional views. In other words, they do whatever they want, even if it means stripping somebody else of their assets and property; as is the case when Socialism goes too far towards the left!

Let's take a moment to think about Socialist leaders throughout history since its inception around the 1930s. There have been other forms of Socialism or rather watered-down Marxism since 1855.

Each time, there is a leader that gains full control over society and subsequently the people of those societies. That leader is seen as the catalyst for positive change within the societal context.

However, once they reach the highest position with the system they are building, they then create a two-tiered system. The first tier is for government and key high-ranking positions are in the top layer where they get whatever they want. The second tier is the lower tier. It's an illusionary equal society where everybody else is viewed as the same; they are everybody else.

Everyone else who is in the lower tier, are of course, subject to control over their daily and private lives, and what resources they are to be allocated. In other words, they are not free to choose where they work and are instead assigned work in accordance with their level of skill. They, in many cases, are not free to marry, as marrying the wrong person could ruin their social status; this is more the case of North Korea though, I suspect a person's career choice is governed by their grades in addition to their parent's societal contributions.

It's at this point, that those outside the system see what's happening and, that Socialism has failed in their view; actually, it succeeded as that's what Socialism ultimately evolves into. The other Socialists in countries where Socialism is not coupled with capitalism then reposition the blame to Communism and push the lie that he was a Communist leader and that all communism is evil. Those Socialists refuse to accept that their supposedly perfect system is not actually perfect and instead seek to continue or in some cases make improvements to it as a way to avoid the same mistakes; it's inevitable though.

What happens when Socialism is coupled with Capitalism though, and when both parts are corrupted to the point of what they call Nationalism? That's easy, just do something similar to when they blame Communism, only this time they claim that a Socialist leader who is actually far left, is instead far right. Take Hitler for example, he was a Socialist and part of the National Socialist Party (NAZI) in Germany. His movement started as far left fascists intolerant to any opposing views and a hatred for the wealthy Jews.

Of course, everybody the world over has been taught to think that Nazism is far right, along with all forms of fascist governance. The real truth is that fascism and intolerance exist on both sides of the political spectrum in the extreme fringes, such as far left and far right; they essentially are the same, just with a different gearing towards whom they hate and are intolerant of.

Which of course, means that Nazism is actually far left and not far-right at the core. The front men/women through the soldiers and doctors could have been either left-wing or right-wing driven.

It's important that we have the correct view moving forward. More so towards any system that ends with "ism". There is no one true system to solve the problems, as such Capitalism always has to have another system running in tandem with it, such as Communism or Socialism. There is no such thing as just a Capitalist, or, just a communist, or, just a socialist country.

What you have instead is a Socialist leader, a Communist leader, or a Capitalist leader, and in some cases a Totalitarian Authoritarian dictator.