The Terrible Cost of ‘Hipster’ Socialism

“'Socialism as Popular as Capitalism Among Young Adults in U.S.'-- Since 2010, young adults' positive ratings of socialism have hovered near 50%, while the rate has been consistently near 34% for Gen Xers.” (Gallup, Nov. 2019).

“Only through the total eradication of private property will we create the new man.” (Che Guevara)

“Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates. The very spirit of rebellion is reprehensible!" (Che Guevara)

“They saw in Castro and Che Guevara the hipster who in the era of the Organization Man had joyfully defied the system,” wrote President Kennedy’s adviser Arthur Schlesinger Jr back in 1961.

Despite a half century of Stalinist crimes, this “hipster” cachet hovers around the leaders of the Cuban Revolution and persists to this day, and contributes much to socialism’s popularity among the “young and hip” worldwide. Then thanks largely to President Obama’s “rapprochement” with those Cuban “hipsters,” Stalinist Cuba became the absolute “coolest” place on earth for hip show-off vacationers.

Fortunately the Trump Team recently curtailed the Cuba-travel-palooza from the U.S., that was obscenely enriching Stalinist Cuba’s military and secret police, who own most of the prison-island’s tourism infrastructure.

Shortly after Obama’s initial diplomatic surrender to Castro in 2014, Katy Perry, the Rolling Stones and the Obama family itself graced Cuba with their presence. Then Karl Lagerfeld showcased his Chanel “cruise line” with a fashion-show extravaganza where Havana’s Prado Street served as the catwalk/runway for the world’s lithest models, while Gisele Bundchen, Tilda Swinton and Vin Diesel posed for paparazzi on the sidelines.

Shortly thereafter the Kardashians arrived in Havana to shoot an episode of their reality show.

The notion of Castro’s Cuba as a stiflingly Stalinist nation never quite caught on among the “enlightened.” The regime was founded by “beatniks,” after all. In 1960 Jean Paul Sartre hailed Cuba’s Stalinist rulers as “les Enfants au Pouvoir” (the children in power). A few months earlier Fidel Castro spoke at Harvard the same bill as beat poet Allen Ginsberg. And ever since then, long-haired Che Guevara has reigned worldwide as top icon of youthful rebellion. The reality, as documented in my book, differs grotesquely:

In fact, Cuban socialism has always been a mortal enemy of almost everything “hipsters” and Millennials claim to hold dear–a more implacable enemy, in fact, than were most Iron Curtain regimes. First off, notice the age of the typical half-dead Cuban rafter who washes up on south Florida’s beaches almost daily, often using his last reserves of energy to kiss the sand in gratitude. It’s rare to see one over 30.

The Castro brothers and Che Guevara often outdid their Soviet patrons in outlawing and punishing typical Millennial behavior. While the Rolling Stones were performing for a huge crowd of Polish kids in Warsaw in 1967, for instance, Cuban kids were being herded into forced labor camps for the crime of (clandestinely) listening to rock music, or growing long hair, or wearing blue jeans.

“Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates,” commanded Che Guevara. “Instead, they must dedicate themselves to study, work and military service.” “Youth,” wrote Guevara, “should learn to think and act as a mass!”

“Those who choose their own path” (as in growing long hair and listening to “Yankee-Imperialist” rock & roll) were denounced by the Castro Brothers and Che Guevara as worthless “roqueros,” “lumpen” and “delinquents.” In his famous speech, Che Guevara even vowed “to make individualism disappear from Cuba! It is criminal to think of individuals!”

The Cuban regime hailed by current American champions of “hipster” socialism jailed and tortured political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin did during the Great Terror and murdered more Cubans in its first three years in power than Hitler murdered Germans during its first six.

Here’s a list of socialism’s accomplishments in Cuba:

*Converted a nation with a higher standard of living than much of Europe and swamped with immigrants from Europe into a vast slum and sewer that repels even Haitians.

*Converted a nation that formerly attracted more immigrants per-capita than the U.S. (and even from the U.S.) into a hellhole that drove 20 times as many desperate Cubans to die horribly attempting to escape it as East Germans died trying to flee East Germany.

*Converted a nation with the 13th lowest infant-mortality on earth –-ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal– into an island slum, sewer and prison ravaged by diseases long-eradicated in Cuba, boasting the highest suicide rate in the hemisphere, and whose practicing “doctors” overwhelmingly flunk the exam given in the U.S. for licensing as doctor’s assistants.”

Every single item mentioned above thoroughly documented here.

Many of Cuba’s mid-century “Millennials” paid a terrible price for “hipster socialism.”

“. . . through the total eradication of private property will we create the new man.” (Che Guevara)

The person who presumes to be able to create a new man is, regrettably, only too much an “old” man. Wildly arrogant, and manifesting a lust for power.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one . . . For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest . . . — Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

The conceit that the government is able to make virtuous people (“the new man”) is naive. The " total eradication of private property” creates, not a “new man” of superior virtue but an enslaved and degraded population :
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to. — Theodore Dalrymple

Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and [already in 1939!] it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.’ — Peter Drucker

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals [i.e., “private property”], would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II

Why socialists need capitalism
Have you heard of the shocking and terrifying diaper gap that is now dividing this nation? It is said to be so dire that the White House is urging immediate government assistance to buy baby diapers. Philosophically, this puts disposable plastic consumer products in the category of inalienable rights guaranteed by the government: among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Diapers. When I lived in the USSR, our Soviet Constitution also guaranteed that our basic needs be provided to us by the caring socialist government. As a result, most basic items were in shortage, let alone such luxury items as coffee or toilet paper. Needless to say, we never even heard of disposable diapers. For our three children, we used pieces of cloth which we washed regularly. We didn't complain or feel disadvantaged because -- I repeat -- we had no idea there was such a thing as disposable diapers. Those only existed in the decadent West, where greedy corporations created such a product to boost their capitalist profits. But we were blocked from this information by the Iron Curtain, and what we didn't know couldn't hurt us. Now I live in America, where the decadent capitalist diapers are about to become a basic "human right" guaranteed by the federal government. About twenty years ago no one used cell phones because they hadn't yet been created by greedy capitalist corporations, who have since covered the planet with a network of cellular towers. Now free cell phones -- known as Obamaphones -- have become a "human right" guaranteed by the government. Internet service didn't exist either, until greedy capitalist corporations surrounded the world with cables and satellites. Now Internet service has become a "human right" provided by the U.S. government to the needy. Condoms, birth control pills, and other modern contraceptives also didn't exist until they were invented, researched, and mass-produced by greedy capitalist corporations. Now they have become a basic "human right" guaranteed and provided by the government. Vaccines for Ebola and other exotic diseases didn't exist until they were developed by greedy capitalist corporations and almost immediately declared a "human right" for anyone in the Third World. Healthcare with all its modern diagnostic equipment, appliances, treatments, and a vast array of pharmaceuticals, from Tylenol to Viagra, also didn't exist until greedy capitalist corporations... And so on and so forth. Capitalism just keeps churning out all these new products, which our increasingly socialist government then declares "human rights" and taxes these very producers in order to provide their products to the people for free. . . . This leads us to the following conclusions, which socialists can't refute because it correlates with their own logic: The longer socialists wait to take over the power, the more technologically advanced society they will get to conserve. It is more beneficial for the people of all classes, including socialists, to delay the socialist revolution indefinitely. To delay the socialist takeover is also better for the environment because only capitalism has the power of innovation and the resources to create less polluting technologies, materials, and alternative energy sources. To impose socialism right away would mean to put the planet at risk of never resolving the environmental problems we face today. Since capitalism generates goods and services that socialists later designate as "human rights," it is also in the interest of human rights to keep capitalism around indefinitely.
Socialists often describe the world as if it has always been as it exists today, leaving out the dimension of time. But time is a major factor because the world has never been static -- and that includes nations, cultures, ethnicities, technologies, sciences, and popular perceptions, such as human rights. The main question that needs to be answered, therefore, is not as much who, where, and how -- but "when?”
In short, “socialism” - actually governmentism - is a parasitic drag on society.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.