|Posted by Caesarevich on January 28, 2012 at 11:40 PM|
Inequality, something that the socialists despise and attempt to destroy by all possible means.
Yet when look at the idea of equality from a historic perspective, I see the opposite to what the socialists agitate for. As a vivid example, let us make an investigation of the tribes of the Ancient era. Let us suppose we were to look upon a Germanic tribe and the Roman province, occupying two opposite banks of the Rhine. The two banks are similar in most initial characteristics thus the comparison has something to investigate. According to the Socialist perspective, whichever society is more equal is the one which has more socialist elements and what modern societies should be aiming for. Using these most inspirational and wise words,we will come to the conclusion that a society of the barbaric tribe is better than the Roman!
The facts: The barbarian tribe consists of generally people who are both peasants and soldiers at the same time. In both, they are very inefficient. The difference between the wealthy and ones in poverty would be at its minimum-minimorum, even the food they would eat would be almost the same. If the tribe was to go to war, it would find itself armed with a horde of untrained and undisciplined пangs armed at the best with bronze swords, and at the common level with wooden clubs and stones. They would be led to battle by the best or most popular warrior who would have no training to his role and upon return will again plow his land and raise livestock. The total absence of logistics,intelligence or simply any order! All, efficiency, justice, development and fairness,is given up in the name of equality where the common warrior and chief eat the same broth. A dream society: equal, ineffective and stagnating! The culmination and ideal example of socialism!
The Roman Empire on the other hand, is the culmination of the evil the socialists attempt to fight. The rich and poor experience such inequality! The rich senators own dozens of enormous latifundia, live in lavish villas and eat well while the common man must at the dinner table has to be accompanied by the simple bread,vegetables and wine. Is this not anti-socialist? Patience and the army will reveal the most fearsome of socialist horrors.
The inequality of the army is even greater than the one of the civil society. Here the average legionary must live in a tent with seven commilitones while the chief officer in the Legion(the Legate) alone lives in a one that is a few times vaster. The pay a legionary gets is far below the one of a Legate! Even more, the legionary cannot become a legate and instead only the trained professionals are allowed to command armies! In terms of protection the Legate's protection is far beyond the legionary lorica! Horrible is it not?
Of course the Roman army is more effective and can easily overcome a barbarian force a few times greater in number. Of course the average Roman eats if not as well as the senator but certainly his meal is far better than the one of any barbarian.But the socialist perspective demands: "Everyone must be equal, and if there is no equality the government must make everyone equal".
The fact is, There are never enough of resources, so sooner or later the government must decide how to distribute the wealth.the empire isn’t able to provide each Legionary with armor as good as of his commander. Nor is it possible to make each citizen of Rome as affluent as the richest Senators. There is a different approach taken, which can be said to be“The man receives rewards according to his deeds”.
The senators are members of families that have served the Republic and Empire through centuries.These families fought for Rome, governed provinces and multiplied the riches ofRome from the beginning of Rome's existence. They organize the economic life of the empire, through trade and production supplying the citizens of Rome with all necessary and demanded goods. Is it not fair that they receive more than those who have not made anything comparable, such as thieves?
According to the socialists the answer is no.
Is it justified to confiscate what their ancestors and they had earned by their works for the glory of Rome, and hand it out to those who have nothing to be accountable for?
According to the Socialists, the answer is yes.
They claim that the works of a family or one should not be taken into account, and if one earns more then the government must heavily tax them since “Everyone must be equal”. In the everyone, they place the Roman Legate, who spent time in the woods of Germany,deserts of Syria and hills of Thracia risking his life, the Roman senator who owns latifundia and supplies the city of Rome with grain, and the common thief,who has not done any good for Rome and instead used his time to “attempt to achieve equality” through means of theft.
Let us make an impossible presumption that a socialist power came to power in Rome. What would be the focuses of the socialist policy? How would the Socialists attempt to change the mightiest empire of its' time?
Equality. The foundation of socialism that the hypothetical socialist power would attempt to enforce as a universal determinant for all national policies. Everyone has to be equal, thus a legate, who went through the fiery battles for the glory of Rome, and a thief, who has not done anything for the benefit of Rome,must get the same reward, as if the effect they have on Rome is equally beneficial. If the Senator has inherited property from his ancestors, who earned it by their deeds, in the name of equality the new owner has to pay forthe accomplishments and abilities of his ancestors in order to give those who had not achieved anything. Absolute disregard to fairness and effectiveness: the key of socialist policies. We can probably see the long-termув effect of this policy.
But at the same time, how much has the empire achieved through this inequality? Was it not the so hated by the socialist circles inequality that promoted the talented to being commanders of armies that protected and glorified the city of Rome? Was it not fairness that allowed the Roman society to develop its’ economy? Was it not the rejection of socialism that gave Rome development from a Lilliputian colony of Alba-Longa to the mightiest power of Europe that ever existed?
What will the removal of this “intolerable equality” provide to Rome?
If the experienced commander of the Legion is replaced with a random fellow without the least thought of how to operate the military unit, will the combat performance of the Legion improve? If the senators will have to pay more taxes will that motivate them better to increase the economic power of the empire? If the thief gets the same living conditions as the senator, will that influence the following generations to develop and use the gifts of God they have received and work for the glory of the state, or remain passive and not do anything, since the responsibility will increase whereas the pay will stay the same?
Why should civilization regress back to the stage of barbaric primitiveness? As shown above this will not have any gains in efficiency. This will not be a step forward in development and will bring closer the barbaric tribes across the Rhine and their Roman counterparts closer to each other in terms of development.
To be brief fact is,equality is not natural. There are never enough resources to have everyone at the same level, some will always have more since they are more able, talented and responsible or even valuable. The Roman armories cannot equip all Legionaries with the armor a legate wears because it would be too expensive and unpractical. What they can do, is attempt to create the best possible armor for the majority and exceptionally good armor for the Legate. And this unequal distribution of protection is justified, since if the Legate is killed or wounded, over 10,000 people would not be properly commanded. And at the same time, that does not leave the legionary without protection, it just means that the use of the finest armor is reasonable and logical and the advantages of it are used to achieve maximum efficiency. Using the resources inefficiently leads to an absence of development, irrational use of what is available and is overall unreasonable. These socialist ideas are what leads to the stagnation in the same stage for centuries, as the one the Germans were in. While the Romans developed in all aspects by rejecting Socialist concepts and implementing the rational and efficient ideas. This is perfectly depicted by the barbarian tribes of ancient times which lived for centuries in the same stage of development due to their policies of socialism and equality.
Rather than taking apart the Roman military machine and giving its parts to random people, as the socialist concepts demand, the machine works as a system. The father in the family does not take his car apart to give the windshield to the son, the fuel tank to his daughter, and the brakes to his wife, but keeps these parts in a system that permits the most efficient use for the benefit of all members of the family.
Socialism is a dead-born ideology because there is simply not a possibility to achieve equality by the means of improving since if improvement would be possible it would have already been done. If a socialist was to come to power in Rome and attempt to implement the ideals of socialism in the army by the order to “give every legionary the armor of a legate” there would theoretically be two possibilities:
a. Decrease the number of legionaries to the number of available armor
b. Leave both commanders and soldiers without protection
Would any of those two choices increase the efficiency of the Roman army? If there would be a possibility to improve the armor, this would have been done before, since the army wishes to prevent the death of the well trained veterans by all possible means. But since there isn't an infinite amount of resources available the army uses the most efficient option available. But if a Socialist was in power, the army as a tribute to the Socialist ideas would have to decrease its' efficiency by decreasing the protection of its' commanders or even leaving everyone unprotected like the more "Socialist-progressive" barbarians.
In other words the anti-socialist concept would have a rational and justified basis that can be characterized by this phrase: “If there is a possibility it should be used. If there isn’t one, the objective is to make the most efficient and reasonable use of available resources”
The socialist concept would have a strictly irrational and absurd foundation: “If there is no equality, it must be changed. Regardless of the possibilities and efficiency”
As a joke back from the1930s about Stalin’s USSR shows this perfectly:
Soviet Newspapers article title: “The government puts much effort into decreasing the number of those hungry”
White Russian Newspapers article title on the same event: “The Soviet government is shooting its peasants who kept the wheat they grew to themselves.”
A perfect example of socialism in action.
If we were to glance at the Roman Empire and the developed countries of the beginning of the 20th century what would we notice? Although the living conditions improved, equality was not achieved. Why? Since yes people began to find their meals more ample, but there was still logic used to make decisions which showed that it is neither just nor beneficial to reward those who do not wish to work. Instead greater rewards were given to those who deserve them, to achieve justice and fairness.And as a result, the civilized concepts brought a bounty which we still are feeding from to this day.
Even the tribe described above, in order to civilize and evolve had its members specialize and form an aristocracy, professional army and constant governing body of its own. Tobe mentioned also that at the time of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, the more civilized tribes of the Gauls had one of their distinct differences from their German counterparts in having an upper class. This allowed a more effective use of resources than the barbarian "equality". Whereas in the most recent while, having the most productive and valuable members of society get more than others is found “not progressive” or even “reactionary”. Of course,from the socialist perspective, the primitive system of the barbaric tribes is “innovative and progressive”.
Yet, in the outrageously true to socialists facts this “reactionary way” resulted in the improvement of living conditions for the lower classes rather than the opposite. If we were to investigate the living conditions of the Roman and his Barbarian vis-à-vis , we would clearly find that the Roman would experience a better living standard. At the worst, the lowest possible class of the Roman society may have living conditions similar to the common ones of the barbarians, but again that is the lowest class of the non-socialist society compared to the middle(or even upper) strata of the more socialist society! Why? Because rather than dividing the riches of Rome earned through hard work and give it out to everyone regardless of the achievements, Rome rewarded the finest of its citizens and attempted to increase the richness through fairness.And this allowed to progress to a higher level of civilization and development.
The Romans did not destroy the marble statue so that all of the people could have some marble rubble.Instead they kept the marble together in the form of a statue having aesthetic value.
Rather than irrationally and randomly giving out rewards the Romans gave recognition to the deeds and abilities of each person in society and achieved fairness through rejecting Socialism. Yet once the empire disappeared and the Vandals captured Rome they fulfilled the most desired wishes of any socialist, this was later known as“Vandalism”(am I the only one that sees the parallel between the acts of the Vandals in Rome and the acts of the socialists when they come to power?) .
One could say, that Rome fell while the tribes lived on to become modern France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. But Rome fell not because of its’ non-socialist attitude but for different reasons. The accomplishments of Rome in many areas remained unmatched up to the 18th or even 20th centuries. The victorious Germanic tribes, freed themselves from the tribal attitudes to become civilized and non-socialist,incorporating much from the Roman Empire into their society. The temples, the statues the cities once again emerged from the ruins. If the tribes remained in their socialist barbarity they would not develop at all and would eventually be defeated by their civilized neighbors.
But today after we have regained what has been lost through acts of destruction, certain individuals believe society must return to the concepts that were the foundation of barbarity. Only for some bizarre reasoning of the socialists, the ideas that proved themselves successful, just and based on hundreds of years of experience are declared “Old and obsolete”, while those that were rejected a long time ago due to their low efficiency are now “New and progressive”.It must be that a regress to the stone age must be the most progressive idea from the socialist perspective, since then it would not be possible to achieve inequality/fairness. Neither would there be any development, laws or justice but to socialists this is not important: equality in all aspects is achieved and that is all that matters!