The Shame of Redistribution
Disclaimer: I wrote this in January 2019.
With the ultimate goal of Marxism being to redistribute wealth equally and establish equity among the citizenry, it’s worth thinking about why this is so dangerous, even beyond the obvious. Here we focus only on the shame that failing to fulfil your potential brings, and the attendant resentment it engenders.
Consider: a tech billionaire, held hostage by the leaders of the people, e.g. an activist.
“We’re going to take your money and redistribute it to the people.”
The thought then arises:
“But what have the people done to deserve it?”
Of course, the people have done nothing to deserve it, yet in the Marxist worldview that does not matter. So, the money is taken, and siphoned to the people. What then with the entrepreneur who generated it in the first place?
Ignoring for the moment that concentrated and directed wealth with intent behind it may be capable of more effective change than wealth spread out among the many, we can consider the thoughts of the mob.
None of them have done anything to earn the money, but they ‘deserve’ it. In their souls though, they know they do not actually deserve it, because they’ve done nothing to earn it.
How to smooth over this cognitive dissonance? It is likely the tech billionaire would be killed, or robbed of all his possessions, rather than merely being brought to the same level as the peasants. Allusions to the murder of the Romanovs in 1918 are clear. Could not they be permitted to live?
I feel that part of the reason these macabre outcomes are so likely is that the shame of the mob does not permit outside thought to cast light upon that which they would rather remain buried in the depths of their being.
With the previously-wealthy dead, there can be no external parties to openly witness and declare that the mob have not earned their newfound wealth.
There is nobody to point out the fact that in a paradigm where wealth by definition cannot be earned, that there is no reason to do anything to earn it. Ideological herd immunity of course suppresses any who may think otherwise.
People hate that which shows up their flaws. Co-workers who get promoted, people who don’t drink, people who work hard and get what they want — all are silently and vocally resented, depending on what is vogue.
People hate not that which is unachievable, but that which is achievable. You could have written that book. You could have gotten that promotion, you could have founded that company.
But you didn’t.
Similar to how people denigrate some forms of modern art:
“That’s just a red square on a white canvas, I could have done that.”
But you didn’t.
Marxism provides an outlet not solely for those who cannot, but for those who can but will not succeed in a meritocratic world order.
It is a lot easier to take — wealth, ideas, happiness — from those who have, then to personally generate.
It is not the wealth of the elites that the people despise, it’s the shame of knowing — knowing that you could have but you didn’t.