Skip to content

Socialism Is NOT a Dirty Word

August 6, 2012

The negativity of the word “socialism” is fostered by those who have accumulated so much wealth that they get cocky. They either never have been, or think they never will be, in a situation where they will need help to survive. Those same people don’t have any problem collecting Social Security or using Medicare. They also never consider the fact that wealth can be a fleeting condition. They could entrust their millions to the likes of a Bernie Madoff, or suffer a crash of the stock market and wake up one day penniless. They’d be breaking in line at the Social Services Administration because they think they’re too good to stand in line while begging for government aid.

What has always amazed me is how the more-ignorant and less-wealthy republican voters (especially the Tea-party wackos) blindly accept the line that “socialism” is a dirty word. I have to wonder how they resolve this obvious contradiction in their minds. They’ve worked hard all their lives, so government handouts must be meant for someone else. Social programs are not bad when they need them and take advantage of them. The problem is all those “other people” who don’t deserve a hand up.

Everyone needs to step back and take a look at the big picture. We’re all in this together. Some people are more fortunate than others but that doesn’t make them any better than the less fortunate. Do the poor deserve to starve to death? Should the sick and elderly be denied medical care? Should farmers who have been devastated by drought or flood be allowed to lose everything? Just because fortune frowned on so many of us, should we be forsaken? The greedy capitalists would say yes, but they would be wrong. Society must step up and help the less fortunate and that can only be done through a caring government entity. Call it socialism or call it humanitarianism, it is the duty of the fortunate to help those who are in genuine need.

Granted, there are a lot of unscrupulous actors who game the system and give it a bad name. Those people should be punished to the full extent of the law. For the truly needy, social programs must be maintained and greedy capitalists and their ignorant minions need to stop trying to end them. Someday they may find themselves in need of help. When that time comes, they’ll be happy to have a caring “socialist” in the White House.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. November 12, 2012 11:01 PM

    If you understood a little better the position you’re taking, you may think differently about things. As things stand with what you have written above, it shows that you neither believe in unalienable rights, nor individual freedom. A socialist, by necessity, cannot believe in those things. To socialists/collectivists, people are not allowed rights to their own property, or even their own life if it becomes a burden on the state. To individualists, the rights of the individual are supreme – no matter who they are or what they have, no one has a right to take their property without their consent. You are right that society should step up and help the less fortunate, but this help must be on a voluntary basis, or individual freedom is trampled on.

    Are you suggesting that capitalists are greedy? What are socialists, then? Socialists are content to forcefully take money and property that is not theirs, to give to causes that the original owner of the property has not consented to give to. As economist Thomas Sowell observed, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money” (Thomas Sowell, Barbarians Inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays). The philosophy of socialism, or any form of collectivism, is built upon a foundation of theft and denial of unalienable rights such as property rights. It destroys individual freedom and sets up an autocrat with godlike power to give and to take away. Better hope the ones with that kind of power are benevolent. (But you can give up any hope of them being as efficient and productive as private enterprise).

    Your characterization of capitalists is a caricature at best. First of all, suppose a wealthy capitalist was entirely selfish and self-serving. Such a person does good for society simply by growing his business, because this creates jobs and products or services for the public. In contrast, a selfish person under socialism is only a drain on public resources. Also, you have said that capitalists are greedy and are not willing to help their fellowman. This is completely untrue, and has been scientifically demonstrated to be false. People who are more conservative/individualistic are statistically more giving than those who are socialist/collectivist. The best indicators of charitable giving are “strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals – not government – offer the best solution to social problems” (Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, 2007, description on back cover).

    Are you really suggesting that without government programs people would be starving left and right? What did America do before the onset of its social programs? I will tell you. People organized voluntarily on a broad scale into charitable associations and took care of each other with efficiency and caring that the government dole has never duplicated. The nineteenth century, the period of the most unrestrained free market capitalism, was also the period of the highest rise in general prosperity for all classes, and of charitable giving, which any country has ever seen. You seem to have no confidence in individuals (who have demonstrated their care towards each other in the history of the U.S.), and a completely unwarranted confidence in government (which has demonstrated its failures throughout the 20th and 21st centuries).

    How is it that capitalism is so bad yet socialism is so moral? Are you not aware of socialism’s track record? Socialism is responsible for more wanton death and murder than any other ideology in the history of the world. Consider its death toll:

    USSR: 20 million deaths
    China: 65 million deaths
    Vietnam: 1 million deaths
    North Korea: 2 million deaths
    Cambodia: 2 million deaths
    Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
    Latin America: 150,000 deaths
    Africa: 1.7 million deaths
    Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
    (Robert P. Murphy, Lessons for the Young Economist, p. 244).

    These figures of course do not include the millions of unborn children slaughtered through abortion around the world by liberals and collectivists, nor do they include the death toll of National Socialism (fascism).

  2. Caleb permalink
    December 1, 2014 12:33 PM

    Haha another liberal brainwashed idiot. You liberals are such hypocrites and know nothing about how government works. Socialism is slavery! Can you not see that? Since when does another human being have the right to take my hard earned belongings and give to other people and/or use them for himself? No human being has the right to take my belongings except for taxes, and even then not in an excessive amount. The constitution is the law. Period. And the constitution was written by capitalist, for capitalist. Capitalism is the way humans work. Capitalism is natures law. God’s law. No human has the right to use me or my belongings for there gain. If you want to be a socialist, go live in the EU. Socialism won’t happen here. Molon Labe fools.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: