When it comes to matters of organizing and governing society, government and the economy, what — exactly — is meant by the term, ‘Socialism?’
An alarming number of people in America are starting to embrace the notion of ‘Socialism.’ Still more alarming is the fact that, when questioned about it, a majority of these people have no idea what ‘Socialism’ actually is or how it works. Many people believe they understand what ‘Socialism’ is, but they actually believe in a fairy tail version of Socialism. They don’t know the Truth about Socialism, mostly because the majority of Americans have never actually studied Socialism. They only know what they have been told about it by their teachers, professors, politicians and entertainers, and the vast majority of those people have lied to them. The average American has little or no idea of how the concept of Socialism came to be*, or why it came to be, or how many times it has been tried, or how many times it has failed. What’s more, when these failures are pointed out to supporters of Socialism, those supporters usually respond by claiming Socialism has never been properly implemented. That is another lie. Socialism has failed very time it was tried specifically because it was properly implemented. Socialism works in Denmark and the Scandinavian countries. Wrong! Oh! But there is a new form of Socialism — ‘Democratic Socialism — and it will work because it’s different. Another lie! The Truth is, Socialism is a lie. It is not the moral imperative; quite the opposite. Socialism makes people selfish and lazy. This is why it is absolutely imperative that we understand what Socialism is and how it works.
The man most commonly associated with the concept of ‘Socialism’ is Karl Marx. He defined the goal of Socialism this way:
Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: “In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis.”
My dear reader, this goal is an absurdity! It is impossible. It absolutely cannot be achieved — ever. What Marx described here is literally his version of heaven on earth. Marx envisioned the goal of Socialism as a man-made return to a time before the Biblical Fall, to the Garden of Eden — only he is saying that, this time, Man will be in charge of creating not only the garden, but all of creation such that he — Man — can live entirely without want, effort or responsibility. As I said, that is an absurdity. It simply will not, cannot happen — ever! And anyone who claims otherwise is literally claiming to be the Creator of all things. Therefore, we cannot look to Marx to define Socialism.
Webster’s on-line dictionary defines Socialism this way:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Basically, Socialism is a system where the enemies of ‘The Corporation’ and ‘Capitalism’ are replaced by the government. Instead of the individual, or even the Capitalist owning private property, the State owns it. The problem here is that the State considers you to be property. Therefore, under Socialism, the State owns you! Now, if you disagree with this statement, I want you to stop and re-read the definitions above. Where does it mention the individual as being important in any way? Where does it say the individual has any rights? It doesn’t mention these things because these things do not exist under Socialism. The only things that exist are the government and the collective. If it helps, you can think of it this way:
Under Socialism, the government is the head (where the will resides) and the collective is its body (that which executes the will).
Let me ask you: who among us truly believes that their body is not actually their body? Unless you are one of those people who thinks and talks about themselves in the third person, you think of your body as belonging to you. And, if asked, even those people who speak of themselves in the third person would say something like, “B3A’s body belongs to B3A,’ which confirms that our bodies belong to us. But, under Socialism, the State owns the body, and you are just a cell within that body. Under Socialism, this is exactly how the State thinks of you: the same way you think of any given cell in your body. You do not care a wit about any given cell in your body, and, under Socialism, the State does not care a wit about you — period! This is Socialism! This is how it exists in the real world; this is how it has always manifest itself; and this is how it will always manifest itself whenever and wherever it is tried — ALWAYS!
Now, I understand that supporters of Socialism will object to my argument, but they can’t — not if they wish to be considered rational, anyway. All I have done is to take the definition of Socialism and use it to describe how it works in reality. It would be the same as if I had taken the definition of baseball and used it to explain the role of every player on the field. The coach is in charge, the team is the extension of his will, and every player on the team is just a part of that extension. The analogy works even better if I use it to describe an army: the general is the head, the army is the body, and the individual soldiers are the cells. What does the head care about the cells when it comes to achieving the mission that the head has decided to conduct? Well, that is how it is with Socialism, as well. Therefore, anyone who objects to my description of Socialism — which is based on the factual application of the definition of Socialism — is objecting to reality.
Now, I ask you, my dear reader: where is the morality in any of this? How can a system that literally thinks of itself as its own god and which has no concern for the cells within its body possibly be considered to be moral? If we base our concept of morality on how we treat individuals, then Socialism is the farthest possible thing from morality. Yet, even if we base our concept of morality on the welfare of society, then Socialism still is far from being moral. That is because Socialism does not care about the body, it cares about the government — where the will resides. Any lip-service the head gives to caring about the cells is just that: a lie! The head needs the body to survive, therefore, it will insure the survival of the body, but it will not care about the cells, and there can be no concept of morality in such a situation outside of the head’s perspective. This means, under Socialism, morality is whatever the State says it is.
This gets us back to Marx. Remember when I said that Marx would have to be a god to do the things he wanted to do with society? And now, we have shown that, under Socialism, the State defines morality? Well, only God can define what is moral. So, either we accept the State as our god, in which case, we have no rights and the State does own us and can do whatever it wants to or with us; or we reject Socialism as the unjust and immoral system that it is. Socialism is based on forced slavery. It destroys the individual, and — eventually — society. This is because Socialism defies Natural Law and, while we may manage to escape it for a short while, Natural Law always asserts itself. When that happens, Socialism collapses — always — every time! There has never been an exception. So I ask you: why support a system that is not only unjust and immoral, but also doomed to failure?
- I do not recommend the use of Wikipedia for real research. This is because it is largely the work product of people with a decidedly Left-leaning agenda. While the platform is supposedly open, I have found that any contribution to an article that goes against the Leftist agenda is removed. However, in this case, because Wikipedia is controlled by Leftists. they have presented the history of Leftist ideology in the best possible light. This only serves to make my case against Socialism all the stronger, which is why I have suspended my rule against using Wiki as a credible source.