So, you think you like Socialism?
According to recent polls, some 33% of students, and 44% of millennials like socialism. It’s not clear whether they like it in the abstract — as a concept — or whether they would advocate the US become a fully socialist country.
From the 1932 book ‘Socialism’ by the economist Ludwig von Mises:
“I know only too well how hopeless it seems to convince impassioned supporters of the Socialistic Idea by logical demonstration that their views are preposterous and absurd. I know too well that they do not want to hear, to see, or above all to think, and that they are open to no argument. But new generations grow up with clear eyes and open minds. And they will approach things from a disinterested, unprejudiced standpoint, they will weigh and examine, will think and act with forethought. It is for them that this essay is written.”
These days, young people wave banners advocating ideas propagated by Karl Marx and other socialists, ignorant of many of the ills and deaths that the implementation of these ideas generated. Socialism was developed by people who wanted to suppress individualism, prohibit property ownership, and promote tight control of its people by the government. This is done in the guise of social justice and equality, with the supposed goal being to help people incapable of managing their own affairs. The first tenet of Socialism/Marxism demands that government control all means of production and manufacturing. Ideally, from their perspective, it should be done literally, but indirect measures (e.g. imposing high taxes, restrictive regulations, price controls such as minimum wages) can also work initially. Second, by implementing a robust welfare system and progressive high taxation system, a re-distribution of wealth is achieved. In the world of socialists, the entrepreneurs, company leaders and job makers are evil and exploitative, and the workers are the poor victims of OPPRESSION. Notably, even during Marx’s time, conditions of workers started improving dramatically, but the information he used in “Das Kapital” (1867) was derived from decades’ old reports (purposefully).
Of course, to ‘improve’ conditions for workers and equalize the playing field, force needs to be applied with an iron fist, and freedoms removed, as every attempt to create a Socialist/Communist society has proven (e.g. Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela). Remember, tyranny and totalitarianism are not the results of misuses of socialist tenets or errors by leaders, but are direct results of correct application of Socialism, an integral part of it. Another place to look at the results of socialist policies is the large American cities. Many are run by progressive/socialist mayors, and their financial bankruptcy, high crime rates, poverty and high homelessness rate, low school graduation rates, high numbers of illegal immigrants, including known criminals — speak to impending chaos and destruction.
“Another big component of Socialism is atheism,…”
Another big component of Socialism is atheism, since religious beliefs contradict the basic tenets of Socialism — the assertion that our rights are God given (or based on natural law) doesn’t square with the socialist’s beliefs that government grants us all rights, and consequently can also take them away anytime and for any reason. In a way, through its promise of Utopia (an ideal world), the lack of scientific basis, and the fervor of its adherers, Socialism can be reasonably viewed as a form of religion.
A strong family structure is another enemy of socialism, as it increases motivation to root for the family members, and not the collective. Finally, the path to replacing Capitalism with Socialism requires activities on many fronts, many involve brainwashing (soviets called it ‘ideological subversion’) of susceptible individuals — in our society these would be the young — sowing of discontent, rifts and even internal wars, at which point Capitalism will collapse, and an eager Socialist/Marxist government will take over. The targets of subversion by socialists — as propagated, among others, by the Soviet KGB and Cuban intelligence — in addition to young, college age students, are their teachers and professors, all the media outlets, and the entertainment industry as exemplified by Hollywood. So, the struggle between Capitalism and Socialism was — and is — fought mostly at the social-cultural front.
The socialists’ activities in the USA in the last few decades were extremely successful. The sexual revolution of the 60’s-70’s was part of the war against the family structure, as was the push for gay marriages. The creation of the welfare state led to more people dependent on the government, and the constant harping on social justice and equality is also a way to propel people toward an all controlling government. The feminist movement was also part of the socialist scheme — whether knowingly by all participants or not — as it incites demonstrations, marches and fights — destabilizing society and seeking more government to take care of every complaint or perceived injustice. The more recent fight over transgenders is another clear attempt at fractioning and dividing, by introducing a non-issue that applies to only a tiny portion of the population. The allowing of foreigners to enter the USA freely and illegally through open unprotected borders is part of the scheme to add voters to the leftist party, as well as dilute the counter-effects of American values and patriotism.
Finally, nothing serves better the fight of Socialists/Marxists to destroy capitalism than the Climate Change tale. By making claims of impending doom on all mankind, they seek to shut down the engines of Capitalism — the engines that gave more prosperity to more people in more countries than socialism could ever dream of — and install socialism in its place, because government must control all levers of the economy to reduce supposedly rising temperatures. (Facts: The world’s temperature rose by ~0.9 degrees from 1860–1998, a pattern of rising and then falling temperatures was observed for millions of years, the future direction of temperatures is unknowable, nobody can know what is the ‘correct’ temperature for this planet, and why was the term ‘global warming’ replaced by the vague and non-comital ‘climate change??).
All the stars were aligned for a big socialist breakthrough in the USA in 2008 when a socialist sympathizer (if not an outright socialist — his mentor was an avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis) Barack Obama was elected president. He proceeded, among others, with great élan and expediency, to take over 1/6 of the economy in the form of a healthcare bill, reduced our self-defense capabilities by making big cuts in the military, acted to increase frictions between blacks and whites, between law enforcement and the black people, and was happy to preside over an anemic recovery from recession and anemic economy in general. The transformation of America that he talked about was from predominantly Capitalistic economy (we’re not fully capitalistic) to more socialistic country — he knew that these things take time and was looking forward to Hillary Clinton continuing his work, but luckily for the country, we were spared, for now.
There are politicians who talk now (mid 2018) about introducing a partial-socialist system to the USA, a-la Scandinavian countries. We already have a socialist centralized education system, a partial socialist medical system, an evolving taxation system, energy system, etc. I don’t think that many can claim that these function well. Adding ‘classical’ socialist ‘ideas’, like free college and free healthcare are high on the wish list of American socialists like Sanders, Warren and Obama. But introduction of any new ‘freebie’ acts to solidify the control of the government on our lives and needs to be resisted vehemently. The only way for government to pay for all the freebies is by taxing us all more, and thus continuing to limit our freedom. You need to remember that high taxes (say 40%) mean, in effect, that the worker spends 40% of his time working for the government, that is, he loses 40% of his free time — or 40% of his life span. The income one earns belongs to her, not the government. We understand that students, who are not in the work force yet, don’t usually think about the economy in these terms, but it’s about time they did, at least start doubting the value of large, overactive, ever intrusive government. As the economist Milton Friedman put it: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
I can see and feel that some, hopefully not too many, are traumatized by some of these comments, and you don’t believe most of what I write. Keep in mind a few truths: spreading of any ideology is insidious and can take decades and generations to be fully implemented. Keep in mind also that when we review the current political landscape, the Democratic Party has lurched left since even the days of Bill Clinton, whose presidency ended in 2000 (18 years ago). Today’s Republican Party is more central and could be compared to the Democratic Party of 30–40 years ago — I suspect that Truman and Kennedy would be republicans today. Also, I’m not accusing socialists of being evil — many sincerely believe that equality and full social justice is attainable and is good, and that government is a better vehicle for improving people’s lives than the free market and human ingenuity. They are just wrong, plain and simple.
What drives people like myself to be on the side of Capitalism and free markets and against government control and socialism is the empiric evidence and common sense.
There is no example of a socialist/communist country that’s doing well, or did well, and there are plenty of examples of total failure. Scandinavia is often used as a glowing example for socialism’s success, but these days Scandinavia is more capitalistic economically than socialistic, except for the extensive welfare structures. The Scandinavian people pay more in taxes than any other part of the world, this by definition limits freedom, and free speech is so limited (by a controlling government) that in Sweden, for example, people stopped defending their culture, stopped reporting on immigrant crime, and just sit back idly while they are being robbed, raped and eviscerated. Scandinavia also spends little on defense, because the USA, through NATO, offers a defensive umbrella. Should the US withdraw its military support, welfare state Scandinavia would be doomed. Venezuela is another example of complete bankruptcy induced by Socialism — once a rich country with huge oil reserves, now cannot make enough toilet paper for the population. The small cadre of elites control everything that’s produced and nothing is left for the masses. This happens when you deny freedom to industrious people and bring in centralized planning. Of course, socialist/communist regimes like Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China and Castro’s Cuba are examples of how costly in human lives (tens of millions killed by the government) it is to impose equality — being equally imprisoned or killed doesn’t count as an accomplishment.
One of the elements of the subversive activities in our colleges and elsewhere, is that people thus brainwashed lose the capacity to think on their own and examine the facts. The undeniable facts are that Socialism/Marxism is a system that is designed to take over your lives in the name of unachievable utopian goals such as equality. Please, remove yourself from the web that the socialist spiders wove around you before it’s too late.
This is what the Sanders’s of the world want to do to us, if unchallenged!
Excerpts From Ludwig Von Mises’ book on socialism, 1932
(All italics and bold are mine).
“They (the communists) want to substitute totalitarian government control for the market economy. No longer should individuals by their buying or abstention from buying determine what is to be produced and in what quantity and quality. Henceforth the government’s unique plan alone should settle all these matters. ‘Paternal’ care of the ‘Welfare State’ will reduce all people to the status of bonded workers bound to comply.”
“The basic conception of Socialism had been worked out in the course of the second quarter of the nineteenth century by those writers designated by Marxism as ‘Utopian Socialists’. Schemes for a socialist order of society were extensively discussed at that time, but the discussion did not go in their favor… The Utopians had not succeeded in planning social structures that would withstand the criticisms of economists and sociologists. It was easy to pick holes in their schemes; to prove that a society constructed on such principles must lack efficiency and vitality, and that it certainly would not come up to expectations. Thus, about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of Socialism had been disposed of. Science had demonstrated its worthlessness by means of strict logic and its supporters were unable to produce a single effective counter-argument.”
“It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an ‘ideological superstructure’ of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was ‘revealed’ as ‘bourgeois’ reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators — the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature. At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings.”
“The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Hearts’ Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and — sweeter still to the losers in life’s game — humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself — its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy. It is characteristic that it should adopt the name ‘Scientific Socialism’ and thus gain the prestige acquired by Science, through the indisputable success of its rule over life and action, for use in its own battle against any scientific contribution to the construction of the socialist economy. The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it. In a socialist community, economic calculation would not be possible.”
“We must also break down the wall of prejudice which at present blocks the way to an unbiased scrutiny of these problems. Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotan ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question, whether Socialism or Capitalism will the better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance — to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered as good and Capitalism as evil — whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with that ‘moral pathos’. The older Liberalism, based on the classical political economy, maintained that the material position of the whole of the wage-earning classes could only be permanently raised by an increase of capital, and this none but capitalist society based on private ownership of the means of production can guarantee to find. Modern subjective economics has strengthened and confirmed the basis of this view by its theory of wages. Here modern Liberalism agrees entirely with the older school. Socialism, however, believes that the socialization of the means of production is a system which would bring wealth to all. These conflicting views must be examined in the light of sober science: righteous indignation and jeremiads take us nowhere. It is true that Socialism is to-day an article of faith for many, perhaps for most of its adherents. But scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs. To protect the socialist ideal from the crushing effect of such criticism, attempts have recently been made to improve upon the accepted definition of the concept ‘Socialism’. My own definition of Socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject.”
“When we call a capitalist society a consumers’ democracy we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be acquired by means of the consumers’ ballot, held daily in the market-place. Every child who prefers one toy to another puts its voting paper in the ballot-box, which eventually decides who shall be elected captain of industry. True, there is no equality of vote in this democracy; some have plural votes. But the greater voting power which the disposal of a greater income implies can only be acquired and maintained by the test of election. That the consumption of the rich weighs more heavily in the balance than the consumption of the poor — though there is a strong tendency to overestimate considerably the amount consumed by the well-to-do classes in proportion to the consumption of the masses — is in itself an ‘election result’, since in a capitalist society wealth can be acquired and maintained only by a response corresponding to the consumers’ requirements. Thus, the wealth of successful business men is always the result of a consumers’ plebiscite, and, once acquired, this wealth can be retained only if it is employed in the way regarded by consumers as most beneficial to them. The average man is both better informed and less corruptible in the decisions he makes as a consumer than as a voter at political elections. The buyer who has to choose between different sorts of beer or makes of chocolate has certainly an easier job of it.”
Reading other books by Mises, as well as Hayek and Milton Friedman (among others) is highly recommended for those who truly want to understand the issues associated with pushing Socialism on us.
