As societies have evolved towards more competitive societies, it becomes evident that they will always find a higher than desirable number of people unsuitable and dissatisfied with their destiny, and, there is a large number of probabilities that this situation will not always have been due to factors that these people could have avoided. For such cases, no doubt, it is necessary to foresee solutions that rationalize solidarity and guarantee a fair level of competition for those whose spirit can bring development and progress to society.
Among the reasons that can make a person feel unjustly treated, we can distinguish those of an objective nature and those that respond to exaggerated expectations. For example, a professional player may consider that he or she has failed if he or she does not obtain the most important award in his or her competition, but he or she could hardly argue that this is a reasonable criterion for estimating the success of a professional player. The causes of this supposed failure that deserve a more objective revision are those that affect wider groups, although that criterion would not be sufficient either, because that would suppose to consider, for example, that they are effectively a relevant case of collective failure, since they do not have what they want and they feel very affected by this lack. There needs to be something more consistent than a foggy feeling of dissatisfaction in order to seriously think about a bad objective that would have to be remedied.
When debating whether we actually live in a better world than in the past, objective data such as 1) life expectancy, 2) educational level, 3) effective freedoms and 5) economic development with much more objectionable perceptions such as regional differences or forms of inequality that respond more to unsatisfied expectations than to objective deficiencies, in other words, there is always a tendency to impose feelings and subjective thinking on development than objective thinking based on scientific backing or facts. This happens, above all, because both capitalism and technology have accustomed us to desire without limit, that is, the degree of development that societies have achieved in the last 200 years was unimaginable, today we see progress and progress faster and faster.
And it is precisely this type of thought that is at the head of today's supposed revolutionaries, those pseudo-scholars whose obsession with the utopian and the imaginary no longer makes us want to recommend equality to the Venezuelan woman precisely because in their thinking process they find it unbearably painful that we cannot all enjoy the same luxuries, a yacht or a second residence in some luxury resort. It seems curious but those who end up preaching the egalitarian discourse are the ones who benefit most from it. A clear example is all the money stolen by left-wing populists in Latin America or even here in Spain where the couple leading the Podemos party (the left-wing party that supports the mature government in Venezuela in Spain), who have bought a mansion valued for 10 years of work from a politician the great party against inequality in Spain, and where needed.
The totalitarian's blindness consists in his inability to recognize that not all inequalities are unjust and that not all satisfied demands produce content. But, above all, their voluntary blindness consists in systematically ignoring the relationship that effectively exists between the evils they seek to combat and the goods and advantages that their policies effectively seek, in recognizing that the socialist governments of Korea and Venezuela are a procedural model due to their gini index, but ignoring that their results have been disastrous and catastrophic.
The attempt to turn democratic politics into a gigantic mechanism capable of providing all kinds of free and inexhaustible goods is what legitimizes the recourse of these new revolutionaries to an integral politicization of our civic conscience, to sustain a vision according to which the origin and cause of all conceivable evils is found in the capitalist system itself, because it seems to them nothing but a false democracy everything that means individual rights, respect for laws, freedoms over the collective good, pluralism and separation of powers, the Constitution and the set of laws that cannot be discussed without a serious risk of causing the collapse of the rule of law. Precisely because they pursue demolition and destruction they support such absurd causes, because everything that destroys feeds and strengthens them, to the precise extent that they are the political force of resentment.
The absorption of everything by politics is essential to totalitarianism, the ideology that promises to free us from any conceivable misfortune, from all envy and resentment through universal equalization in misery, although it tends to hide that it intends to do this by preserving only the welfare of the few called to administer the new world of equal man.
This totalitarianism of universal and timeless causes tries to rob us of intimacy and expropriates our beliefs, of any cosmovision or link, precisely because it tries that the singular citizens, with their histories, merits and deficiencies on their shoulders, become pieces without conscience of a new and marvelous political contraption.
Totalitarianism does not admit limits and does not know how to do anything else but destroy, it is merely antisociety and freedom, and that is why it resorts non-stop to remembering the past in the purest style of the Marxist theory of class struggle, history is a constant struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor, systematically ignoring what exists in the present of overcoming, attributing to now the worst vices of yesterday, those that really there were and those that it invents and exploits with absolute audacity. That is why the "universal justice" of left-wing politicians who seek profit by deceiving other people, and of the very fools who believe in it, is perfectly compatible with the lack of shame.
Ortega y Gasset said of this kind of politicians that they tend to turn off the lights so that all the cats are brown, in other words, so that the liberals are indistinguishable from the fascists, so that a constitutional Monarchy can be confused with a dictatorship, or so that totalitarian supremacists can be considered as active agents of the revolution, simply because all these deliberate confusions catalyse the tendency towards disaster that always threatens societies where there is a minimum degree of freedom, fractures and weaknesses that constitute the real hope of totalitarians.
