Member preview

Democratic Socialism is Totalitarian Slavery

How to properly understand this system

Image composite from Hearts of Iron IV

Have you ever wondered why, despite the continuous systemic failures of socialistic, communistic or fascistic regimes, — as evidently proven by the observable catastrophes of 2018’s Venezuela, Mao’s China, and the Soviet Union — this idea of the Utopian collectivist commune just never seems to die? Witness the popular resurgence of this idea in today’s celebratory praise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s push for Democratic Socialism.

The secret to the existence and survival of these ideas is far more sinister than you may have realized.

George Orwell, who was a Democratic Socialist himself, anxiously warned us about this in ‘Nineteen Eighty Four’. Ayn Rand laid out their calculated plans in ‘The Fountainhead’. Friedrich Hayek illustrated the imminent dangers of what’s to come if they succeed in his ‘Road to Serfdom’.

Literature is brimmed with thinkers whom throughout history, had alerted us to the dangers of this idea. What they would have warned us today, which they’d did in the past, is how Democratic Socialism is simply slavery re-branded.

If you made the argument that Democratic Socialism is slavery, you would likely be accused of exaggerated fear mongering. But are you wrong? Read on to know why Socialism is essentially slavery.

Socialism does away with property rights.

It is a basic tenet of life and liberty that without property rights, no other rights are possible. The problematic error of which most of us tragically hold today is to view property only as inanimate matter, because this materialistic view classifies property as being separate and apart from a man’s life.

The truth is, property is the implementation of life and liberty. It is crucial to understand how the bond between private property and political freedom is an indissoluble one, because an individual’s property is an extension of his own life.

Why property rights is essential to freedom

Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. Published in 1719.

It is important for people to learn the connection between property rights as being directly protected by liberty, and how this connection ensures life. To help picture this clearly, think of yourself as Robinson Crusoe. Or Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Or if you’re talking to the very young, Matt Damon in The Martian.

These fictional characters illustrate this bond between property and life. When these castaways were shipwrecked alone, the only choices presented to them is either to survive or to perish. In order to live, they will have to employ the use of their mind and direct their body into producing the necessary requirement of survival: shelter, water, food.

Socialist guilt tripping

A socialist will bring up the example: imagine if a year later, another castaway is stranded on the same patch of land as you. Don’t you have the moral obligation to share your shelter, water and food with him? The answer to this is not “yes you’re obligated morally to share” nor “no, you’re not obligated morally to share”, but rather, the correct answer is: “you shall decide”.

Why is “you shall decide” the right answer?

It is because the shelter, water and food you’ve created for yourself on that island is a direct product of your mind and body, which is an extension to your very life.

The laws of survival which applies to you when you were first shipwrecked applies to the new castaway, as well. He too must employ his mind and body into ensuring his own survival. Because if he did produce the requirements for his survival, you yourself do not have the right to take the product of his labor from him against his will, in the case where you fail to produce what you need to survive.

Logic in defense against manipulative emotionalist tactics

Naturally, logic obliges, that if another person is shipwrecked, you’d want to help him, because he will in turn, be a useful addition to your life. You could request that he help you plow your land in exchange for food. In this case, both parties engage in the exchange of value for value. No one is required to involuntary give up their property.

This is capitalism. This is the reason why socialist despises the defining of liberty as being tied to property rights, and want to do away with property rights completely, by condemning the profit motive in capitalism. It is because capitalism isn’t slavery.

Slavery is a heated word, is it fair to claim that socialism is slavery?

Our conventional imagery of what slavery was, tends to blur the concept of what slavery really is. What we tend to forget is the meaning behind slavery itself.

Slavery, properly understood, is a person coerced to work against their own will. Delusional millennials or retiring baby boomers of the socialist persuasion might yell, “So? I hate going to work in order to make a living, is that not coercion under capitalism?”

The difference is this: the choice to live is entirely up to an individual under capitalism. One may decide not to work and perish if he so chooses. He has a right not to acquire any property. But that is a choice not offered under socialism.

Under a socialist regime, do you suppose you are allowed the refusal to the demands made against your property? Well, you can stop being silly now, for you won’t even have that option to decide, because the concept of private property itself does not exist under socialism. Everyone under the system will be expected to work for the good of society. Working for the good of society might sound dandy, except everything you create with your labor and your mind will not belong to you, for your life’s purpose is to exist only for the good of society.

Natural history of property rights

We tend to take for granted the creature comforts we have available to our lives today. We are well fed, well clothed, and well protected from the elements. There is no way you, the reader, would even bother to read this essay if you were starving, exposed and in physical danger. Our existence today is a miracle of human civilization.

So how did our miracle start? What was the catalyst which sparked man’s ascent from the cave to modern civilization?

Agricultural Revolution -property ownership became increasingly important

The answer was the Agricultural Revolution during the Neolithic Age. This was the time in mankind’s history that set forth our conceptual understanding of property rights. Had the Agricultural Revolution never happened, mankind would not have been able to flourish. Herein also lies the historical origin of private property.

Property is to life, is to liberty

For the first time in history, the discovery of agriculture freed mankind from the instability of hunting and gathering. During the Agricultural Revolution, land is no longer just a stage to hunt wild animals or forage for subsistence. Humans are now able to grow food.

However, growing food is a time and labor consuming process. What incentive would a prehistoric man have to exhaust his time and labor into cultivating a patch of land if a stranger would freely loot the fruits of his labor (literally)? Warfare is inevitable in this case, and justifiably so, because the stranger’s plunder of your crops meant starvation and death.

Humanity solved this problem by conceptualizing our understanding of property rights; essentially making order out of chaos. Instead of constant warfare where only death and destruction prevail, mankind understood it was superiorly beneficial in the long run to respect each other’s property.

Pre-Agricultural Revolution, ancient men were nomadic

Here is also where individuals started collaborating to create what we today understand as, ‘Society’. Humanity started growing their own communities to replace their existence as nomadic, solitary families; hunting and gathering for survival.

This is the origin of life, liberty and property. This is a trinity bonded together and neither can exist without the other. Property rights ensures men that they are free (liberty) to exert their time and labor for their own survival (life), without the threat of their work (property) being taken from them against their will.

Without property rights, there can be no freedom.

Property as an extension of body

On a higher, abstract level of understanding, it is crucial that people know how to conceptualize property as being part of the extension of their body.

image source —

Consider: If you sat down in front of Niagara Falls and made a sketch of it; you are essentially investing your time, effort and skills into creating that drawing. You would intuitively know it’s inherently wrong if a fellow visitor were to take a liking to your drawing and seize that sketch away from you; because his grandmother (whom has always dreamed of seeing the Niagara Falls) can’t make the trip because she’s bedridden. It will not change the fact that it is wrong even if the crowd of visitors pressured you to give up the sketch because they felt sorry for the bedridden grandmother. You will still recognize it’s wrong because it is your mind, body, time and labor which permit you the creation and ownership of your property.

Scale up this thought experiment and you can apply this very same concrete to the advocates of socialism. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the visitor who wants your sketch and society’s downtrodden is her bedridden grandmother. The crowd around you is your social system that will decide what is in the benefit of ‘society’s interest’.

This is Democratic Socialism at large.

Advocates of socialism properly advocates slavery

Herbert Spencer in his 1884 book ‘ The Man Versus the State’ warned of the parallels within socialism and slavery. In applying the example above, by relinquishing property rights as something innately sacred to the individual, it will render a person the same status as a slave. As Spencer pointed out; “it matters not whether his master is a single person or a society. If, without option, he has to labour for the society, and receives from the general stock such portion as the society awards him, he becomes a slave to the society.”

The grooming of society into compliant slaves

It is not an accident that the leftist dominated academia today use the buzzword, ‘dead white men’, in an attempt to belittle the accomplishments of the intellectual giants of our past. Nothing you read today in my essay is new, nor groundbreaking. Historically, socialism has always been understood to be slavery.

Every time a new socialist emerges, the media immediately mobilize to package the ideas as new, challenging and bold. When in reality, the ideas are as putrid and ancient as the Stone Age, when incompetent hunters tried to make a false moral case that they have a right to the fruits of another’s labor.

In regards to democratic socialism, the question boils down to this; do you place a high value to your life as an individual or do you not, and instead have to derive value from other people? Socialism is the political system which allows you to extract economic value from others against their will.

This gradual brainwashing can be witness in the grooming of young minds today. It is by design that the ivory towers discourages the reading of classical literature by branding it, ‘western imperialist ideas’. Writers are told to “write at the level of a 5th grader”, so that their writing is ‘inclusive’ to all levels of education. This is an intentional breakdown of critical thinking skills.

It is not a coincidence how slaves were historically always denied proper education. The young today share this fate as they too are denied proper education just like the serfs of the past. Should it come as a surprise then why the younger generation today openly embrace Democratic Socialism without a thought? American students had been groomed to embrace the psyche of a slave since childhood when they first set foot in the halls of public schooling by our leftist intellectuals.

Democratic socialism is considerably worst, as novelist Ayn Rand pointed out that socialism is, “universal slavery — without even the dignity of a master.”

How to correctly reject socialism using reason and logic

First thing to know, is how rarely someone is convinced through reason or logic today. The advocates of Democratic Socialism understands this, which is why they don’t appeal to their constituents from the position of reason/logic.

In their narrative, Democratic Socialism might not be a logical nor is it even a reasonable way to organize society. This is why they brazenly brush away and ignore the many economic and historic evidence of its consistent failure.

Rather, their argument is built upon on how Socialism is the moral system politically because it is the system which “takes care of the needy in society”, even if that outcome is just a pipe dream.

Fortunately what you, the vigilant and the informed, have in your arsenal is more powerful, because you can address this farce with both logic and morality on your side. Now that you understand the principles behind property rights as being indispensable to life and liberty, you can properly address the perils of Democratic Socialism.

Socialism’s goal is to eradicate the power of private property. Without control over your own private property, you will not hold any power on your own life and liberty. The threat of slavery is how you should advocate against socialism.

Let it be said, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants socialism, and Socialism is slavery. In truth, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocates for slavery.

Use that as the baseline for your argument against Democratic Socialism. Let it be known how we shall never stand for slavery.

This article gets paid based on the number of claps it receives from Medium subscribers. Do feel free to clap if you like this article. If you dislike it, do feel free to share it with your socialist friends so you’ll have a conversation piece with them.
Like what you read? Give S.G. Cheah a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.