How Socialism Slithers In

While Socialism sometimes takes over a country by violence (e.g. the Russian revolution), at other times it is voted in (e.g. Spain in the 1930s and Venezuela upon the election of Hugo Chavez).  It is much harder to cause the end to Socialism without violence (e.g. Venezuela today) and sometimes the violence leads to something worse (e.g. Franco took power by overthrowing the socialist government that preceded him). 

This is one reason why it is important to be careful when we read statements that suggest where a politician’s policies will lead us.  Socialism sounds very enticing on the surface.  We all (I hope) know to be wary of promises that Socialism will give us all a living wage along with everything else we want, regardless of our desire or ability to work and contribute.  But the real enticements of socialism can be far subtler.

Take for example the following statement made by the Governor of New Mexico in support of creating an Early Childhood Care Department (NM Sen. Bill 22).   After stating that “a child’s early years of life are formative,” the Governor goes on to state that with the new department and with our “collective” responsibility, we can ensure that New Mexico children “will receive a continuum of care from birth to age 5 and enable the State to lay the groundwork for a successful future that encompasses our values as New Mexicans.” See Albuquerque Journal, 2/21/2019. LINK 

Now, on the surface this sounds lovely.  It sounds like the Governor cares about us and our children.  But, let’s reread and see what it really says.  It tells us that the State will take over the formative years of our children’s lives.  It tells us that the State would like to take control of our children from birth forward.  It tells us that the State feels it is more qualified than the family to “lay the groundwork” for the child’s future.  And, it tells us that the State, not the family should be the one to instill basic values in the child.  (It does not tell us what those values will be!).

To me, the thinking behind the lovely statement seems far too much like Socialism or Communism.  The State will raise the children and teach them how and what to think so that they will be useful cogs in the State machine.  It will replace the love and guidance that parents provide in a child’s formative years with State sponsored indoctrination.  Is this what people really want?

Example number two comes from a mandatory directive from an appointed head of a state agency to the employees within that agency.  The directive is addressed to “Family.”  Now, I don’t know about you, but I use the word “family” to address my actual family (parents, siblings, in laws, cousins, etc.).  When I address correspondence to those with whom I work I address them as “colleagues” or “co-workers” or perhaps in an appropriate instance as “friends.”  They are not my family (nor is the State - at least not yet).

But, more importantly, this directive asks employees to share their thoughts about their work environment in a way that would help to bring more employees into state government.   The request does not provide for anonymous answers (that would have been easy enough to do by setting up a Survey Monkey or anonymous Google share or other similar means).  Without such opportunity for anonymous reflections on less than positive aspects of the job there is no real interest in learning what the employee actually thinks or in understanding ways that the working environment might be improved.  Rather, it provides only one avenue:  to praise the State as employer.  And, it asks the employees to spend work time on this, rather than doing the actual work that the taxpayers are paying them to do.

And yet there is more.  The mandatory request concludes by stating that the sender wants to know “what you think/feel/believe and why.” What sounds, perhaps on the surface as a department head having some interest in supervised employees goes far beyond that.  It seeks to delve into their private and personal beings.  Only a State that has some interest in directing every behavior of individuals in a way that likely removes their individuality would demand to know what every employee believes and why.

These are just two examples of the sort of subtle maneuvering that causes people to support socialist-like agenda without even realizing they are doing so.  They add up.  And before one realizes it they are supporting and voting for a full Socialist agenda. 

I titled this post “How Socialism Slithers In.”  The use of the word slither was an intentional reference to a snake.  Whether you read it as fictional, as a Biblical fact, or as something else, the story of Adam and Eve and the Snake clearly presents evil disguised as offeror of a lovely option (in the form of beautiful fruit) which, if taken, has devastating consequences.  Socialism does the same: it offers what sounds like a lovely utopia, but it always has devastating consequences. 

The Socialism Snake beckons to us more and more zealously these days.  It is subtle and quiet as it slithers into our lives.  We need to be vigilant and see the snake for what it is.   The utopia it offers is nothing more than smoke and mirrors hiding a life without freedom and likely filled with misery.

Capitalism Respects the Individual While Socialism Denies that Respect in Favor of the State

Dear Democrats,

I see that, for the first time, a Gallup poll has found that more Democrats prefer socialism than capitalism.  (See https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx)

Do you really understand that which you are preferring?

I suspect that everyone is at least somewhat familiar with the former U.S.S.R.  While we liked to refer to it as a communist country, it was indeed socialist.  Is that truly what you are looking for?  And, please don’t tell me that socialism here would be different – it would not.  The people who turned to socialism in the Soviet Union, like many of you, believed that it was for the good of all the people; history shows us how that turned out.

Let’s consider.  Here are the primary characteristics of a socialist economy:

1.      Public Ownership.   Also known as collective ownership, this means that the all forms of production and distribution are owned, controlled and regulated by the state (the government).  The basic motive of the government is not to profit, but rather to meet targeted objectives – objectives that those in power have determined are in some way appropriate.

2.      Planned Economy.  Again, the state will control and plan all economic activities including production, exchange, distribution, and consumption.  Laws of supply and demand do not apply.  The theory is that because the state is solely responsible for the distribution of wealth that society as a whole will prosper.

3.       Classless Society.  Everyone will theoretically have an equal economic status.

4.      State is responsible for basic necessities of life.  The basic needs of life are promised by the state.  These needs include:  food, shelter, clothing, health, education, employment.  The details of each of these needs are again left to the state to determine.

5.       Equal Opportunity.  While there may not be equality of income, the state will guarantee to provide equal opportunity by considering the skills and ability of each individual to determine their success in such a way as to deprive no one of their basic needs.

6.       Non-existence of competition and limited choice of consumer products.  Because the state has full control over production of goods and services there is an absence of competition in the market.  Because the system is focused on life necessities, choice in consumer products will be limited and confined to the essentials.

7.       Pricing Mechanism.  Pricing will be controlled by the state; this includes both market pricing and accounting pricing which underlies decisions about production of consumer and investment goods.

I can understand how this might sound good on first blush.  Words and phrases like “classless society” and “basic needs provided to all” along with a “planned economy” where “society as a whole will prosper”  all sound lovely.   How wonderful that everyone will be provided equally with food, shelter, clothing, health, education, and employment. 

Or, is it really so wonderful?

Let’s look at how those basic necessities were provided in socialist Russia.  I assume you are all aware of the bread lines and the meager existence of the Soviet citizenry.  Three generations of family living in a three room (that’s three total rooms, not three bedrooms) apartment.  Smaller unrelated families required to share living space.  Employment determined by the state.  Education primarily focused on indoctrination to the party ideals.  And, while everyone may have been provided those basic necessities, though in limited quantity and quality, one cannot really argue that the society was classless.  Those in power lived very differently from the masses.

I do think that the idea of socialism is in large part built on compassion.  One sees one’s fellow humans suffering and wanting for the basic necessities while others seem to have more than they could ever need.   One wants to help.  One wants to allow everyone to thrive.  But, consider whether, despite all its glowing rhetoric, socialism is really the best way.

In socialism, it is really the state that thrives.  The individual simply becomes a tool of that state, supporting it and those few that are in power.

Let’s consider how a capitalist economy differs. 

1.        Private Ownership.  Unlike socialism the means of production and distribution are primarily under private control.  Generally, there will be limited taxation and minimal government mandated labor policies as well as those designed to ensure employee safety and protect against unfair hiring practices.

2.       Free Market.  Individuals and businesses compete for profit.  The underlying principle is “survival of the fittest”; that is, those that offer the best products and services for the lowest prices while maintaining a high level of profitability will usually survive.  The free market follows the law of supply and demand and will be responsive to the needs and demands of consumers.

3.       Two classes.  Historically, capitalist economies are split between two classes of individuals:  the capitalist class that owns the means for production and distribution of goods, and the working class who sell their labor to the capitalist class in exchange for wages.

4.       Little or no government interference.  While an ideal capitalist economy would have no government interference, in reality there will be minimal laws and regulations on certain industries.  The government will not usurp the individuals‘ rights and abilities to make their own decisions as to what they need and what they want and as to how best to fulfill those needs and wants.

5.       Power of the individual.  The entire production pattern of capitalism is based on the desires, wishes and demands of the consumer.  Individuals are free to make their own choices as to how to use their skills and what to do with their profits.  Every individual is independent to his means of production in any occupation that one likes.  Self-interest rather than state interest will allow the individual to determine how and how hard to work, and will allow maximum income to be earned based on decisions and demands of individual consumers.

6.       Choice.  Producers and consumers are free to make decisions rather than having decisions made for them by the state.

7.       Willingness to change.  Capitalism has the ability to adapt and change.  The willingness to allow change and the adaptability of societies to improve inefficiencies within economic structures is important as societies evolve and is currently especially important in the area of technology.

Capitalism does not have so many pretty and compassionate sounding phrases as does socialism.  But, let’s go below the surface and consider that ultimately the difference is about the respect that one has for each person’s right to determine his or her own destiny.

In the end, socialism concludes that the individual is incapable of surviving, let alone deciding how to survive, without the state.  It sees the individual as a child who needs the state to act as parent, making all life decisions for the individual. It will feed and cloth the individual as it sees fit, not as the individual might like.  It will provide the care that it determines is appropriate.  It will decide how the individual should spend his or her life, both working and leisure life.  And, in order for the system to work, the state will demand complete loyalty from the individual.  Individual desires, hopes, dreams, aspirations become meaningless as all walk the path determined by the state.

In contrast, Capitalism respects the individual.  Yes, that can have some harsh consequences.  We all make bad decisions from time to time and, sadly, sometimes a bad decision may truly affect the rest of our life.  Sometimes we are placed in situations where we simply cannot make the decision that we would like.  Even in an ideal capitalism where everyone was faced with identical opportunities and abilities, the results of how each individual would handle those opportunities would differ, and ultimately  place some in less than desirable positions.  

Our very noble human compassion wants to stop the hurt that can come with a capitalist economy.  But, socialism is not the answer.  The answer is not to take away our individuality or to demean individuals as incapable of making decisions.  The answer is not to give the individuals’ power to the state.

The answer is to work to improve the existing imperfections of capitalism, not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water and dump capitalism for socialism. 

So, dear Democrats, I urge you to turn away from socialism’s seductive siren song.  Instead of being seduced by some power structure that would strip us all of our individual freedoms, listen to all the many individuals and their diverse needs and wants.  Help those individuals to see where changes in our society can strengthen our individual determination and responsibility to make a better world in which the individual, not the state, controls his or her own destiny.  Capitalism, not socialism, provides the democratic economic structure in which this can take place.