There was a House vote last week over condemning socialism. What does it do? From what I can tell, pretty much nothing, except condemn socialism.

It’s been made out to be a virtue signal by the right, but I think this reveals something significant, which I’ll get into.

You can see the results in the graphic above. What we see out of Republicans isn’t very surprising. Aside from the few who didn’t vote, their condemnation was unanimous. Republicans tend towards limited government and the free market, and it’s great to see them consistent with themselves in this regard.

But let’s get into something concerning that the vote reveals. Democrats should have also been unanimous in their condemnation of socialism. But they were split, nearly half-and-half.

The reason this is sobering is because Socialism is a heavily statist government philosophy which masquerades as an economic theory. It, along with its virtually identical butt-buddy communism, falls under the banner of Marxism. The previous century was the century of Marxism, and it was the bloodiest in all of human history, and it’s not even close. Where Marxism is implemented at scale, death also follows at scale.

The death counts were so high that the margins of error were in the tens of millions.

When asked whether you’d condemn socialism, the only correct answer is “yes”, and it should come emphatically and without hesitation. Yet, the Democrats were split on it, with more saying “nay” than “yay”.

Having a constituency to pander to is no excuse, considering that anyone holding office is expected to be among our intellectual betters, even if the constituency is not.

And, let’s be honest here, Marxists are generally not intelligent. If they appear to win a debate, it’s usually because they were up against someone who knows that Marxism is wrong, but didn’t properly prepare for the debate, likely because they thought that they’d find an easy grand-slam victory.

And the thing is, as stupid as Marxists may be, they’ve studied it extensively enough to present it to those who did not, and they were able to intuit the rules of rhetoric to be able to weild them deceptively against the unprepared.

And stupid people are Marxist for a reason: because capitalism is competitive, and that’s a game which they’d rather not play, because they don’t want to lose. They’d rather that everyone be at the same low level than for some people to be at high levels and some at low levels. Crabs in a bucket.

Let’s not kid ourselves here: some people just can’t succeed in a competitive environment. There’s this idea that everyone can be anything they want to be. It’s a fairy tale that helps people sleep at night. Sadly, some people are just going to work in fast food for years and years, and maybe struggle with it (and when you consider how the Dunning-Kruger effect works, they’ll probably still think they’re too smart for it).

Then along comes Marxism to sell them the pipe dream of equality of outcome. And because gullible people exist in immense numbers, tremendous amounts of bloodshed follow. And all the while, these same gullible people will believe that it’s because people aren’t cooperating.

Marxists are the flat-earthers of economic theory: they win by preying on the unprepared.

And they are a huge chunk of the Democrats constituency. And Democrats themselves don’t have the nerve to tell them that they’re wrong, and know that if they did, they’d split their own vote, and narrowly become a third party to a socialist party, if the above-mentioned House vote is any indication.

How close are we to seeing a repeat of the immense bloodshed of Marxism? I don’t know. It could happen as soon as the left takes control of the major branches of government, and might depend on whether they decide to kowtow to a huge portion of their constituency. And that could be just a few years from now.