There are just nine steps from freedom to socialism to societal breakdown
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Talk of socialism is suddenly everywhere. The journey from a free society to socialism, however, does not occur overnight. It’s a stepped process that begins slowly and ends with a rush.
Here are those steps:
Step 1. Massive Government Spending. Socialist states have government at the center of their economies and feature enormous spending programs.
In early 1990s Sweden often cited as a socialist state, government spending exceeded 70 percent of its economy. Under President Jefferson, government spending was approximately 2 to 3 percent of the economy. Today, we are at 36 percent. Sweden, now walking away from socialism, has reduced its spending share to just over 50 percent.
Government education, retirement, and medical care -- nearly cradle to grave spending -- are three cornerstones of future socialist states.
Obama once said you can create a governing majority of those dependent on government. Elizabeth Warren is now promoting “universal child care,” which would extend that dependence.
Step 2. Massive Tax Systems that Reduce Incentives. Increased tax burdens go hand-in-hand with spending. Throughout history, tax systems start out simple and wind up complex and burdensome.
By the end of Rome’s socialism under Diocletian, according to the historian Will Durant, taxation “rose to such heights that men lost the incentive to work or earn, and an erosive context began between lawyers finding devices to evade taxes and lawyers formulating laws to prevent evasion,” which led Romans to flee, seeking “refuge among the barbarians.”
We have a tax code so complicated and long that few can do their own taxes. Not satisfied, politicians threaten massive income tax hikes, wealth tax confiscation and penalties for those who want to leave the country.
Step 3. Reduced Growth Leading to Economic Stagnation. Over the last 20 years, the European Union, which featured socialist and semi-socialist states, had almost zero economic growth. Over the last 60 years, while our governments grew to 36 percent of the economy and imposed trillions in regulation, our growth slipped from an average of 4 percent to 2 percent.
Step 4. Deficits. In semi-socialist Greece, once on the brink of being a failed state, government debt, as a percentage of the economy, is nearly 180 percent. That would be like you having credit card debt nearly double your income. In the U.S., that debt ratio has exploded in the last decade, rising to nearly 106 percent.
Step 5. Governments Print Money. Undeterred by deficits or debt, governments print money to pay for programs. Inflation is the result of governments increasing the money supply beyond the needs of economic growth. In socialist Venezuela, inflation is expected to be at least one million percent in 2019. In other words, its money isn’t worth the paper on which it’s printed.
Step 6. Government Fixes Prices and Declares When Goods Can be Sold. Diocletian set wage and price controls for socialist Rome. In Venezuela, people can only shop on certain days and shopping malls can only be open two days a week. Free of that today, in the 1970s, we had gas rationing and double-digit inflation.
Step 7. Underground Economies Rise. The more crushing taxation, spending, inflation, and regulations are, the larger the underground economy. People turn to a barter system because paper money becomes worthless. In Greece, the underground economy is said to exceed 20 percent of the economy. America’s, by contrast, is around 5 - 6 percent.
Step 8. Class Warfare Begins Tearing the Fabric of Society. Historically, class warfare (the fight between classes of haves and have-nots) begins in earnest as economies stagnate. That reaches a dangerous apex during prolonged economic stagnation if accompanied by significant wealth inequality.
Of ancient Greece, Plato described “two cities . . . one the city of the poor, the other of the rich, the one at war with the other.” According to Durant, the “poor schemed to despoil the rich by legislation and revolution [and] the rich organized for protection against the poor.” Ancient Greece’s bitter class warfare included not only government redistribution, but a distrust of “democracy as empowered envy” – a certain outcome, in the U.S., if we abandon the Electoral College.
Step 9. Total Societal Discord. Also in ancient Greece, debtors, when the legislative ransoming of the rich’s wealth was not enough, murdered creditors as in Mytilene. Today, Venezuela is in near total societal breakdown as tens of thousands seek to flee the country amidst a socialist dictatorship, a growing police state, empty store shelves, little medicine, and even less order.
Those are the steps. They don’t necessarily occur in order, often occur in tandem and don’t have a timetable. While they take time to develop, the rush at the end can be quite rapid as we have seen in Venezuela.
All along the way, the power of government grows and rights correspondingly diminish. Often initiated by a seduced vote of the people, in time, socialism is maintained by force.
The United States is not, currently, a socialist nation. Our economic vitality remains greatly decentralized – a necessity for a stable republic. However, we have massive government programs. If spending increases, at the rate it has in the last 20 years, socialism will come into view. The adoption of “Medicare-for-all,” estimated to yearly cost $3.2 trillion, would push our spending as a percent of GDP well above 50 percent and explode our debt even more.
History, of course, is not a pre-determined straight line. Wise leaders have steered civilizations away from bad decisions – as they have in Sweden today.
On the other hand, the fall of the Roman Republic and Greek democracy still serve as harsh warnings to large governments like our own.
Altogether, only a fool would rush into more government spending and irretrievable government dependence. The wise should rather seek to reduce government in the hopes of avoiding the socialist mistakes of the past.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
“Our economic vitality remains greatly decentralized – a necessity for a stable republic. However, we have massive government programs. If spending increases, at the rate it has in the last 20 years, socialism will come into view. The adoption of “Medicare-for-all,” estimated to yearly cost $3.2 trillion, would push our spending as a percent of GDP well above 50 percent and explode our debt even more.
History, of course, is not a pre-determined straight line. Wise leaders have steered civilizations away from bad decisions – as they have in Sweden today.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
On the other hand, the fall of the Roman Republic and Greek democracy still serve as harsh warnings to large governments like our own.
Altogether, only a fool would rush into more government spending and irretrievable government dependence.”
Oh get a new buggy man, this one was old and hoary before the majority of living Americans were even born.
Claim
President Truman denounced the use of "socialism" as a "scare word ... for almost anything that helps all the people."
"[Republican Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is “creeping socialism.” Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power.
Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is, “Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That is what he means."
Creeeping Socialism is the great evil along with secular progressivism that promotes it that America faces today. People talking socialism while denying capitalism or that they are even capitalists are a threat to America’s well being and future. The seeded articles stages of collapse from freedom to socialism to societal collapse are exactly right. We must defend our economic liberty and constitutional republic from them now.
This seed conflates social democracy with authoritarian state / expropriation / command-economy and redistribution of wealth and, as is commonplace, simply labels everything socialism.
Sweden is a social democracy - it is a form of capitalism. The problem is statism (which translates into massive government spending)
Ancient Rome under Diocletian was authoritarian rule with a command economy
All social democracies: highly regulated capitalism coupled with statist public services.
Greece = capitalism (screwed up but capitalism nonetheless)
Venezuela = authoritarian rule / command economy / expropriation of private property / irresponsible levels of redistribution of wealth / state capitalism and private capitalism
Diocletian Rome = authoritarian rule with a command economy
Venezuela = authoritarian rule / command economy / expropriation of private property / irresponsible levels of redistribution of wealth / state capitalism and private capitalism
Greece = capitalism. Totally screwed up but capitalism nonetheless
Ironically, this is a key tenet of Marx' criticism of capitalism.
Venezuela = authoritarian rule / command economy / expropriation of private property / irresponsible levels of redistribution of wealth / state capitalism and private capitalism
One needs to understand one's problems. Socialism is not the problem; socialism is not even in operation - it is purely theoretical. The problems are all different aspects of socio-economic/political systems and the examples all draw from states with capitalist economies.
I am not suggesting that capitalism is bad. I am suggesting that too many people miss the boat by lumping all of their dislikes into one confused label of 'socialism' and, in so doing, lose sight of the actual problems. I find that both ignorant and dangerous. Get to know your enemy. Better to fight specifics than an amorphous blob.
There is no hope for the success of so called pure socialism. It has due to human nature always devolved into some form of pure human evil against people in the given society. All we see above is excuse making and blaming everyone and everything else under the sun for the failure that is socialism. We are not interested in further experimentation and exploitation just so they can try yet one more time to get it right. Especially now when we have capitalism which has done so much good for so many and has been tinkered with to make it better over time. In order to establish socialism, it’s proponents will have to destroy both the current economic system and all the people who benefit from it and won’t willingly give it up. Capitalism as we have made it now is worth preserving and defending to the point that we and it will have to be gone from this earth before something else is imposed on the surviving world. Perhaps after the current boomers and next generation age out and are naturally gone there will arise a consensus that is different, but not now.
Explain what you mean by 'pure' socialism.
What are the defining characteristics of 'pure' socialism?
What we have above is noting that all the complaints are about systems based on capitalism (or ancient systems that predate modern -isms). Since you do not appear to have a clue as to what socialism is, you (and many others) point to bad practices in capitalist-based socio-economic/political systems and blindly cry 'socialism'.
For example, this is very simple to do, look up the economic system of the Nordic nations (the ones your seed deems 'socialism'). To not understand that these are capitalist economies is fundamental to the problem.
No need to dumb things down for me. I would be quite receptive to some intelligent, informed commentary on this subject.
So you define ‘pure’ socialism as ‘whatever Sanders wants’?
Sanders basically wants the USA to adopt the Nordic model. He is a statist advocating more social democracy.
Why don’t you just tell us what your vision of socialism is then we will make an informed decision as to whether we will give up what we have for it or not. Until then we will struggle to the max whatever it takes to preserve what we have.
It is not my vision of socialism and I do not advocate socialism. (I wrote an article a few months back distinguishing socialism in technical terms from the slogan-level understanding that is prevalent in the USA. So I have already done my part.) I am interested to see if you have any idea of that which you write.
Offer something of intellectual value, KAG. You run about labeling all sorts of things as 'socialism' yet apparently you cannot even provide the defining characteristics of socialism.
Well the seed is an old political trope intended to distract the public from how bad things really are. The political argument that trying to change a bad situation could make things worse is an admission, not a rebuttal. The US economy simply isn't working for the public any longer.
Neo-liberal, laissez faire, free trade globalism has done more to force the United States to become socialist than anything stupid politicians or grassroots activism has done. Neo-liberals have promised prosperity that their nonsensical economic policies simply cannot provide. Supply side economics has been deliberately intended to benefit merchants and passive investors while creating a disincentive to work and produce. Neo-liberals appear to believe that trading stocks and lending money will provide prosperity for the country. By trying to convince the public that the US should become a nation of passive investors instead of workers, neo-liberals have destroyed the ability of the United States to sustain itself by producing what the country needs and wants. Passive investors do not produce anything; passive investors obtain their income by scraping money away from those who do produce something. The neo-liberal promotion of passive investment has discouraged work, real savings, domestic investment, domestic innovation, and has skewed allocation of resources.
The United States cannot consume its way to prosperity. Neo-liberal, laissez faire, free trade globalism is an economic lie told well. Neo-liberal, laissez faire, free trade globalism appeals to the lazy, the indolent, and the greedy. Why work when it is so easy to sit back and let money work for you?
Pay attention to the lies contained in the seed. When the private sector stops growing the economy, then any government spending will eventually become a larger share of economic growth. The neo-liberal incentive is to scrape more public funds rather than work.
When the private sector no longer contributes to economic growth then wages will stagnate, tax revenue will fall, and the private sector cannot support the public. That creates the need for government deficits that provide a steady stream of public funds to private passive investors.
Government deficits do not print money; that is a deliberate lie. Government securities are sold to passive investors, the money already exists and is not printed. The printing press for money is controlled by private lenders; fractional lending prints money. Neo-liberal passive investors and financiers are responsible for debasing the US currency.
When the private sector stops contributing to economic growth then the incentive to work and invest in domestic production has been removed. The country becomes dependent upon foreign producers to supply the basic needs of the public. The more affluent in the country begin relying on passive investments that can only provide a return by eliminating jobs and avoiding the risks and costs associated with producing something. When the public can no longer work to provide what they need and want, then the natural result is government dependence, social unrest, and a desire to redistribute money the same way passive investors do.
Neo-liberal, laissez faire, free trade globalism is forcing the United States to become a communist economy that is centrally planned and controlled by an oligarchy. And that oligarchy fears anything that would favor production and work over passive investments. Neo-liberals don't want to work; they want the money they've scraped off the public to work for them. The neo-liberal lies are really the path to socialism. If that is what it takes to put America back to work, then so be it.
Then you should be pleased by the working class defection to the Trump campaign and the things Trump has done such as reducing taxes and regulations creating an energy boom here with cheap natural gas to make manufacturing here more competitive from both a tax and energy perspective, luring back or insourcing of American companies retuning facilities that had once been outsourced, the threat to use tariffs to renegotiate trade deals to make us more competitive, the rapid growth of manufacturing jobs the last two years, and finally that real wages are finally growing faster than inflation even with absorbing all the people who gave up on the job market reentering the labor force and part time moving to full time. These are changes that Obama mocked and said were impossible and spoke of needing a magic wand. Lastly there is nothing wrong with investing. Most full time workers are investors for their retirement, health savings, education savings and long term life goal savings. We should not discourage that.
It is a sad state of affairs when the only champion of the working class in American politics is a bumbling buffoon who was a television celebrity. Where have all the capitalists gone? Why have so many Nobel winning economists been so opposed to Trump's attempts to bring jobs back to the United States and reduce the country's trade deficits?
Passive investing is not saving. Passive investors are stridently opposed to higher wages, more benefits for workers, or money 'wasted' on labor. Those higher costs mean passive investors cannot scrape as much money away for themselves. Passive investors want near term profits with no cost; however, economic growth requires costs that may not generate near term profits. A worker making passive investments is depending upon their own job being eliminated to lower costs and allow their investments to grow.
Most investors in retirement accounts and others I mentioned are in mutual and exchange traded funds active or tracking an index. They moved away from major investments in own company after Enron. I thought that otherwise workers owning shares of their own company outside of required retirement savings is a good thing. I want an ownership society where most own their own homes, retirement, college savings and health savings/ private health insurance plan. It doesn’t matter what Trump was. It matters that he cares about middle America and the middle and working class of America and stands up to the bi coastal elites who are the neo liberals you dislike. I like that he supports global free trade but wants it to be fair to America and our workers.
Given that socialism is essentially a Utopian cult, it's no surprise that actual socialists are written out of the socialist canon for the crime of putting socialist ideals into practice and attemptig to create the socialist utopia. It doesn't really matter how devoted Lenin was to socialist ideas or how many millions he inspired to fight and die in the name of socialism, he's not a "real" socialist because of some heresy he committed while working to achieve the socialist utopia. Much like Ayatollah Obama declared millions of Muslims are not "real" Muslims because of the inconvenience of acknowledging them as such, millions of people who believe themselves dedicated socialists are written off as fake socialists.
It's the no true scotsman argument writ large. As Professor Kolakowski wrote:
"Marxism has been the greatest fantasy of our century. It was a dream offering the prospect of a society of perfect unity, in which all human aspirations would be fulfilled and all values reconciled. . . Almost all the prophecies of Marx and his followers have already proved to be false, but this does not disturb the spiritual certainty of the faithful, any more than it did in the case of chiliastic sects: for it is a certainty not based on any empirical premises or supposed ‘historical laws,’ but simply on the psychological need for certainty. In this sense, Marxism performs the function of a religion, and its efficacy is of a religious character."
Lenin took almost immediate authoritarian control. Given the people never had economic freedom (nor, logically was that even possible in pre-industrialized Russia) Lenin never even attempted to advance socialism. What he (and Stalin) accomplished was to redefine the label socialism to mean authoritarian, single-party, command-economy rule. Others have done similarly and self-labeled as socialism thereby adding additional interesting meaning to the label such as public services, expropriation of private industry, etc. It is quite a confused mess.
That is intellectual laziness. About as information bearing as declaring anything one dislikes as 'socialism'.
Almost true. What the author describes is Marx' view of a very future society (which he labeled 'communism') in which technology was able to provide all the needs of life providing people the means to pursue their own interests and advance society. The epitome of live to work vs. work to live. So that, I suppose, is fair to call Marx' utopia. This is what Marx pictured as an endgame but never really spent time describing it in detail (or even how it would come about). Marx' work focused on critical analysis of the system in play which he further coined as 'capitalism'. He spent little time on the details of alternatives.
The key prophecy of Marx, I think, is that capitalism will collapse under its own weight. That has not happened. But that does not really have much to do with the subject matter. The key problem is that people mention Marx and then talk about factors that have nothing to do with what Marx wrote. For example, nowhere does Marx advocate an authoritarian regime that controls the economy using the people as its resources. That is the exact opposite of what the guy advocated. That should be the first clue, but inexplicably it is not. Funny, actually.
enin took almost immediate authoritarian control
Lenin was a socialist trying to create the socialist utopia via a dictatorship of the proletariat.
hat is intellectual laziness.
I agree. It's sad it's constantly employed to declare socialists, not "true" socialists.
For example, nowhere does Marx advocate an authoritarian regime that controls the economy using the people as its resources
That's in large part because Marx didn't focus on the transition from the overthrow of capitalist society into the socialist end state. His approach mirrors the underwear gnomes:
Step 1. Overthrow the governing class
Step 2. ????
Step 3. Socialist Utopia!
But yes, Marx did discuss a dictatorship of the proletariat that controlled goods and their allocation.
Again, socialists are those who working to create the socialist utopia. Since it's impossible to create a socialist utopia given human nature, means necessarily differed as socialists struggled to achieve the impossible. Simply because they don't belong to your sect, it doesn't mean they aren't socialists.
So Lenin did not actually assume authoritarian control over Russia? History sure seems to disagree with you Sean. But yes, Lenin was a socialist and I suspect he had the intention (at least initially) of ultimately giving economic freedom to the workers of the nation. But he abandoned the principles very quickly on and rolled his own system. He just kept the name 'socialism'. Stalin then took things to a new level (Stalinism) and of course stuck with the 'socialism' label.
Not interested in learning anything, eh?
You have not actually done any research in this area. Right off the bat, Marx viewed socialism as an interim step between industrialized, mature capitalism that has collapsed under its own weight to a system wherein the proletariat have control over the productive resources of the economy. Eventually Marx envisioned this interim state would evolve into a system wherein society is run in a highly democratic fashion (both economically and socially) and that technology provides the needs for life so people will spend their time pursuing personal ambitions. He called that communism. If you wish to speak of a Marx' utopia the name for that, per Marx, is 'communism'. And, as I noted earlier, Marx basically sketched this out without providing any details on how it would even come to pass. His focus was on the critique of capitalism, not the definition of socialism or its far later evolutionary stage of communism.
You can repeat slogans but that is not really offering any information.
You presume I am a socialist? You mean offering intellectual discussion on a label that is profoundly confused in the USA means that I must be a socialist? If I were to discuss the military strategy of Hitler would that make me a Nazi? If I discussed the oppression of Protestants in the 16th century would that make me a Protestant?
Don't presume. Don't presume things about people and don't just accept slogans as truth. I am a retired multiple entrepreneur (capitalist).