John Stuart Mill put forward a limited socialist vision towards his life’s end—he said that if people wanted to form cooperatives and communes that was fine, why not? Just don’t impose socialism on everyone, that’s all. Mill was already aware that capitalism caused inequalities and social disequilibrium—there needed to be some amelioration, and perhaps a cooperative movement was it.
This is the problem with classical liberalism—it knocks out the aristocrats and the priests and induces rapid economic growth, but this growth then causes inequality and resentment (which talented orators use to whip up the masses, now no longer constrained by religious or martial virtues). Classical liberals like to pretend “it could have gone on forever” (the Victorian economic boom)—but it creates the conditions for its own destruction.
Mill’s observation that socialism is fine if carried on in a cooperative is true. Nothing wrong with it. If you think it’s a better way to run the economy, just form a commune and live in it—there you go, socialism exists. The reason leftists don’t accept this view is because they don’t really believe cooperatives will out-compete private enterprises and *eventually* make the whole economy socialist. They might say that, but deep down they don’t believe it—and so “just do your own socialism, prove it works” is not viable.
However, the more important consideration is that socialism is more than just a proposal to run the economy in a better way—it’s a religion, and was recognised as such from its earliest days. It’s also a religion of universal salvation—just like its cousins, Christianity and Islam—so what upsets the socialist told “just make your own commune” is not so much that the commune will never out-compete a capitalist enterprise, but the fact that not everybody will be saved.
This is what distresses the Christian when he sees “heathens” still at it—rather than just setting up a church and having trust that your superior religion will bring in converts, you have to forcibly suppress the “demon-worshippers” (to save them, you understand—for their own good).
Socialism promises things, as in Marxism, such as “an end to man’s alienation” and his “rediscovery of his true nature at a higher level”. That’s nothing to do with more fridges and cheap cars (it became that in the Cold War)—rather, socialism promises religious salvation. And it distresses people, people from Semitic religions, when other people are not part of the universal salvation religion. In itself, to stand outside, even if you don’t do anything in particular, implies inequality—and that cannot be tolerated, all must be equal (spiritually or economically).
Socialists and anarchists who actually go to live in communes are the best type (though “grungy”) because they take responsibility for their ideas and implement them in a practical way—rather than “disillusionment” coming after 70 years of a wrecked economy and society, as with Soviet Russia, it can come all at once on a micro-scale without anyone being hurt. Of course, Marx utterly disdained anyone who tried to implement “communism now” in this way—that wasn’t “scientific” (although in its empiricism it’s actually very scientific); rather, socialism could only be implemented “all at once” as a grand state project—hence bringing universal salvation.
This is yet another reason why Marxism, Christianity, and Islam are all the same thing: they will not just “make their own cooperative” and trust that their “product” is superior to everything else on offer—no, really they know their product is inferior and would not be chosen voluntarily (so they have to close down the opposition, by force). Christianity violates the non-aggression principle, if you want to get libertarian about it, because it doesn’t recognise your free choice in religion—it has to compel you to follow “the one true faith” in order to save your soul; just like socialism has to compel you to work in a certain way to achieve “economic abundance”.
This is why I finally realised that Christianity and Islam are also the enemy—not because I want to pick on them, but because they will not leave you alone and respect your boundaries (just like socialism). They are also adept at claiming to be victims, just like “the woke”, though they start the trouble that causes them to be pushed (see, Extinction Rebellion, just like early Christians, sat in the road).
Christians and Muslims claim to be “the most tolerant people” (servants of the God of love, you see)—but they’re completely intolerant, what they call tolerance is intolerance (just like Marcuse complained that American tolerance was really “repressive tolerance”—true tolerance being where people only say things Herbert Marcuse agrees with).
All these groups believe themselves to be “the Chosen”, like the Jews, and so are very intolerant about “the unChosen”—it’s why Christians and Muslims are so smug, although all they did to be “Chosen” was assert a belief that they don’t even know is true or not.
It always irritated me that conservatives basically speak and behave in ways that aren’t Christian when they claim to be Christian. That’s because they’re not; they just hang on to the last Semitic belief because it’s inert compared to the latest Semitic belief like Marxism—it’s “patched”. If you really followed Jesus, you would be for open borders and hate the things Thatcher said.
It used to irritate me, but most conservatives are just unreflective people who hold on to whatever exists regardless of what it means—if they took their professed Christianity seriously they couldn’t be conservative, because what conservatives defend, ultimately, is an aristocratic position (the nation also being a blood-based extended family). But Christianity is a compulsory universal equalitarian fellowship—not an exclusive elite formed by blood.
I’d tolerate Christians and Muslims—but they wouldn’t tolerate me; so why should I reciprocate? These religions invented by the Jews—Christianity, Islam, Marxism—just won’t leave you alone, so you have to treat them as enemies.