Egalitarianism

If everyone were equally poor, living in poverty would be the normal state of existence. If everyone were equally prosperous, living in prosperity would be the normal state of existence. Poverty therefore becomes an unacceptable state of existence in relation to a prosperous state of existence.  
(I wrote more or less the same thing as a commentary under the same title here).

The doctrine of egalitarianism is false because it's impossible to realise. All ideologies that essentially go against nature are impossible to realise. French socialists seem to believe that their ideology can even change the laws of nature. The only requirement is fanatical conviction. They believe that they can change or even eliminate history, much the same way as the 'enlightened' (illuminés) of the French Revolution thought. The latter even went as far as to try to erase all pre-revolutionary history. This is characteristic of totalitarianism when historic facts are thought to go against the grain of the established and imposed ideology or religion.

What French socialists are apparently incapable of creating is prosperity. This is so painfully evident that despite their inane efforts, one ends up believing that not succeeding in creating prosperity is an essential part of their program.
In this case socialism becomes parasitical. As it cannot create wealth it can only create poverty, and by extension the poor rely on socialism in order to get by, thanks to socialist altruism.

Instead of trying to create a society in which poverty cannot possibly exist, socialism seems to perpetuate poverty in order to perpetuate itself. As Oscar Wilde shrewdly pointed out, socialist altruism becomes part of the malady of poverty. The poor- influenced, if not conditioned to distrust those capable of freeing society in order to establish a more natural, economically positive climate that encourages individual entreprise that leads to prosperity- will continue to vote for those who foster them, pretending to represent them and care for them the most.

For the same reason of false equality, French socialism seems inclined to limit the level of national education to a strict acceptable minimum. As the natural spirit of competitively is not considered politically correct, compensation for individual efforts and good results, and even grants for further education awarded to those who merit such help and encouragement, are suppressed. Naturally the standard of national education under such circumstances becomes worse than mediocre.
According to French socialist ministers, this would seem to be perfectly acceptable for the people. The future elite, the sons and daughters of French socialist ministers however, would benefit from much better, private school education.

French socialism naturally extols the French Revolution and the birth of the Republic. In their view when the end justifies the means, one has no need to dwell on the means. But one conveniently forgets, or glosses over, where, in historic fact, the 'end' is established.
The French Revolution became a heinous monster that finally, fortunately, destroyed itself. But that was not the 'end', unless one accepts that even worse poverty, rife criminality, extreme social division, general disorder, distrust, disillusionment, and the catastrophic state of the French economy was then the justified end.

In historic fact the end was 'justified' by Napoléon Bonaparte. In his time he was considered to be born of the Revolution. Without him France would have remained in the most miserable divided, hopeless and pitiful mess. It was thanks to Napoléon that prosperity and national unity was regained and re-established. But that was by no means all that he accomplished, not only for national posterity, but for European and global posterity.
Yet today French socialism accords little importance to Napoléon. For them he hardly even deserves a page in history. As he represents a model, an example, he is thus considered by socialist standards to be a menace. For ideological reasons he is dismissed as being politically incorrect. But then he was an individual. French socialists fear such individuals because they actively disprove socialist doctrine. Isn't this one good reason why history will eventually and finally reject socialism as null and void?

__ 

      Text © Mirino. Painting- Prise du Palais des Tuileries (1792) Jean Duplessis-Bertaux.                                                                                        November, 2014