The High Price of Power
The actions and resulting failures by Putin in Ukraine are entirely indicative of the fundamental shortcomings of Communism, Socialism, Authoritarianism, and Totalitarianism. All of these socio-political structures rely upon power to subdue persons and to subjugate peoples (both externally and domestically). Thereafter, individuals are no longer free to advance their own interests, to pursue happiness, or to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Instead, they are commanded to advance the interests of the collective (as defined by those, who hold zealously to the reins of power).
With overwhelming power, a people can be temporarily subdued. Villains may enjoy isolated success through wanton destruction and unrestrained brutality. Barbarism may result in short-term gains, but it cannot give rise to a sustainable and stable society. There is always a bigger villain or a more brutal adversary. In the face of an equal or greater power (or in response to entrenched and determined resistance), the offending power wanes. Its aggressive actions consume vast resources. Its acts of destruction cause the much coveted prize to be tarnished or wasted.
Unable to produce value or benefit from its own actions, the offending power quickly becomes a victim of its own “successes.” A captive (or dependent) people is not a productive people. If damages are not repaired repeatedly or if resources cannot be quickly replenished, one will find himself reigning over a wasteland. In isolating power in the hands of a single despot, legacy parties, or a class of “elites,” the economic and societal systems become stodgy and staid. Society comes to be defined by inefficiency and ineffectiveness, and the situation ultimately breeds corruption and tyranny.
In the 20th Century, Socialists and Communists embraced bold ideas. In fits of hubris and in demonstrations of arrogance, they engaged in revolution. They adopted Central Planning. They promised that they could do things better … for all. They promised Utopia. Their promises proved empty. Their revolutions failed … routinely and spectacularly. They condemned all around them to a nightmarish dystopian existence. They promised equality of excesses, but they imposed upon the people an “equality” defined by loss, want, and misery.
Today, such persons reluctantly recognize their own shortcomings and failings, but their arrogance and greed remain unmitigated. Rather than relying upon their own limited abilities, they seek to take by force (of law) from a disfavored class of “others.” They envy the successes of a limited and shrinking pool of producers. They covet what those others have obtained through creativity, effort, prudence, and productivity.
Modern neo-socialists view themselves as “kinder and gentler” collectivists. Being among the growing classes of self-declared “victims,” the would-be beneficiaries justify their forced takings by arguing that the producers are unworthy or excessively privileged. Far from acknowledging conspicuous instances of strong-arm robbery and institutional theft, they argue that their self-serving actions are noble, necessary, or even morally compelled. The motivations and justifications are the same whether adopted by riotous looters, self-serving political minions, or a despotic madman half a world away.
