View Comments |
Print This Post
| 
by Jack Ward | October 28th, 2008
The redistribution of wealth from one group to another is unAmerican.
Capitalism is an economic system that allows individuals to set their own goals for success and is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity. It has often been described as the "primary engine of growth."
Winston Churchill defined Socialism as "a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." So it is evident that Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s, was correct when he said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Socialists believe that your life must be guided from birth to death by the government.
There is no question that the American principles of capitalism and free enterprise are under attack. The question is, will America hold to the principles of capitalism and free enterprise or will it embrace elements of Socialism, Marxism and Communism?
To confuse the electorate, the Left cleverly avoids any use of the terms Socialism or Marxism and uses euphemisms to mask their agenda. "Progressive" is newspeak for Socialist, "economic justice" means redistribution of wealth by government fiat, "restoring fairness to the economy" is code for taxing the rich, "social justice" is an expansion of the welfare state, and "investments" are wealth transfers that fund the socialist agenda.
In unguarded moments the mask of the far Left slips and we see what they actually believe. During a hearing in the House of Representatives, far-left congress critter Maxine Waters (D-CA) said, "Well, I can see that this congresswoman is going to favor nationalizing the oil companies, and making sure the prices go down." Not to be outdone, Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets into the market." Nationalizing private industry is what we expect from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said in 2004, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This sounded uncomfortably like Karl Marx, who said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And even Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama suggests we need to "spread the wealth."
Barack Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a Harvard-educated Nairobi bureaucrat who also supported the redistribution of wealth. In 1965, he advocated eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses. He also wrote, ". . . there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income . . ." and . . . "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and siphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development." The younger Barack Obama has adopted many of his father's Socialist beliefs. Unfortunately, this dysfunctional thinking is accepted as normal in the Socialist/Progressive/Marxist world.
Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, was asked if presidential candidate Barack Obama was a Marxist. Lieberman said, ". . . must say, that's a good question . . . I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."
Socialism is based on envy and the mandated sacrifice of others. It is the desire to possess another's wealth and lower others to a shared misery. Successful Socialism is when all suffer equally. The fable about cooking crabs describes the Socialist mentality. When the pot filled with crabs begins to boil some crabs attempt to climb out of the pot. But the other crabs pull the escaping crabs back into the boiling water. In the end – all suffer the same fate.
Socialism does not encourage self-reliance, responsibility or personal wealth. In fact, shirking responsibility is accepted. Socialism does not reward anyone for working hard because everyone receives the same reward. The best worker and the slacker are rewarded the same. Socialism equalizes misery and poverty while productivity and efficiency suffer.
An IBD/TIPP Poll measured American attitudes towards a prime tenet of socialism – the redistribution of wealth and income. Even Obama's supporters opposed redistributing wealth and income 54% to 28%. Obama's popularity will crumble as soon as they realize that Obama is pushing a Socialist agenda that they oppose.
People readily buy socialism, because every socialist politician has used a play on the rhetoric of the grandfather of American socialism; "a chicken in every pot". People love being told they're going to get something for free. Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a marketing gimmick – the equivalent of, say, the cable company giving you "free" cable TV after you've agreed to give them a percentage of your monthly income. You don't get anything for free in a socialized society. In fact, you frequently pay more than you would in a market system because of the lack of competition and price mechanisms. You just get it from one centralized source (the government), to whom you entrust all of your money. If you are too stupid, simple, ignorant, disoriented, or lazy to take repsonsibility for your own actions and manage your own life, this is an optimal system. I'd like to think that more Americans are not stupid, simple, ignorant, disoriented, and lazy than are, but my perception tells me otherwise, so I'm not optimistic in Americans resisting centralization in the future. At least not until they are left with a Carter-era economy and decide to let the evil capitalist bastards have a go at fixing everything so they can socialize it again.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 28, 2008
Patrick writes:
"If you are too stupid, simple, ignorant, disoriented, or lazy to take repsonsibility for your own actions and manage your own life, this is an optimal system."
I take your point, but I think you mix too many descriptions in one statement. Under communism it is not stupid, simple, or ignorant to become disoriented and lazy, or to give up responsibility for managing your own life. When the state takes over the management of all life, it is logical to shirk all responsibility. I’m reminded of a story of a man in Poland who “worked” two jobs, sleeping through the official one so that he could be rested for the black market one.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 28, 2008
Frightening concepts, however you and I will need to become adept at survival in a world where achievement is penalized. This means moving off or to the side of the grid to avoid confiscatory taxes, protecting assets probably out of country, and maybe going into a survivalist mentality ust to get through the week.
If you doubt any of this listen to the "Constitutional Lawyer" as he indicates that the Constitution is flawed because it does not redistribute the wealth and does not address the needs of the governed. Hmmm seems to me the Constitution was designed to be a living document, not through judicial interpretation rather through an amendment process. If the Supreme Court followed it's constitutional mandate we would not care about the politics of the judges because they would strictly interpret the actual constitution as written and amended.
Welcome to all the hangers on owning you and your intellect…unless you choose not to play!
Comment by Mickey G | October 28, 2008
Mandated sacrifice. This is an enlightening way to describe socialism and how it will affect all of us. In a society that respects the individual, giving to those who have less should not be forced and will result in bitterness. Social activism programs that encourage greater participation in the life of the community and concern for the poor could have the same effect without imposing laws. The liberal illuminati want to enforce every behavior with the strong arm of government.
Comment by jeanedcrusader1 | October 28, 2008
[...] This sounds a lot like what is happening in America right now. Read the rest of Ward's blog at Intellectual Conservative [...]
Pingback by a-Khromatic » Blog Archive » Capitalism is Superior to Socialism | October 28, 2008
"Hmmm seems to me the Constitution was designed to be a living document, not through judicial interpretation rather through an amendment process. If the Supreme Court followed it's constitutional mandate we would not care about the politics of the judges because they would strictly interpret the actual constitution as written and amended."
Mickey G……you do have some form of intellect. Thank you for showing it. I agree with your above statement. The Constitution was meant to be a living document. Everything changes over time. The constitution needs to adapt along with it. There does need to be at least some interpretation because nothing is black and white….even the constitution.
Socialism is definitely not the solution, however, unfettered capitalism isn't either. Capitalism can be traced as the culprit, or at least a player in all of our ills. It is the disease from which we suffer. With all the great minds in the world you can not tell me that a better system can't be created. There is far too much emphasis on taking sides. Noone works together for the good of humanity any longer.
At the rate technology is racing forward there is an ever decreasing need for labor of all types. Being motivated, responsible, and educated will no longer mean anything. If everyone achieved higher education, for instance, we would have an overloaded influx of highly qualified people. Where would they all work, when the need for labor decreases? You would end up with Phds working for minimum wage at the ole BK cafe…maybe. Also, with the ever increase of corporations outsourcing labor this will happen even sooner. What will you say then? Capitalism, where it is extremely necessary to create and sustain a burgeoning country/society it eventually leads to a more than large disparity between the classes. It no longer becomes an equitable system when all the money and power is held by the few, and we increasingly distance ourselves from being a democracy.
Comment by omgucbs | October 29, 2008
omgucbs,
By your comments I'm not sure you understand capitalism. Capitalism is the voluntary, legal, eyes-open exchange of goods or services between willing parties. It has nothing to do with something designed by great minds.
If one of the parties misrepresents something, it is no longer capitalism. If the exchange is illegal, again, it is no longer capitalism. If the items exchanged are not of comparative value, then one of the parties is cheating. That is not capitalism.
Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised, because it perfectly balances all the elements of human nature and economic forces. All other systems are interventionist, and therefore unbalanced.
Government cannot equalize outcomes, it cannot successfully intervene in the private, legal transactions between consenting parties without unbalancing the economy.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 29, 2008
MM:
With comments like he "It is the disease from which we suffer." either does not understand or just desires to muck up the works with generalizations. Let's hope it's the former and he is open to being educated. I must correct you on one item. Capitalism and Communism both come from great minds. That of Adam Smith and Karl Marx (with Friedrich Engles). Adams wrote "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (often called simply Wealth of Nations) in 1776 and his work greatly influanced our founders. Marx wrote the "Communist Manifesto" in 1848. These works were the basis for the USA and the USSR (which killed 3 or 4 times as many as Hitler). So, based on this we can choose which system we would like to live under, and which should be considered a disease.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 29, 2008
II,
I accept your correction, except that Adam Smith simply described capitalism, he did not invent it. Capitalism is the natural activity of free men living their lives.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 29, 2008
MM
I'll buy that. Capitalism is a natural way of being, but then again Newton did not invent gravity:>) I guess it's just another way of looking at the situation. I think we need to study and aknowledge the great minds which give us a framework to judge our lives.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 29, 2008
MM is absolutely right. The desire to "create" an economic system, whether it is Marxism, corporate fascism, socialism, mercantilism, etc, is the desire to create something artificial that must consequently be maintaned by force, to supplant something that arises as the natural result of free people engaging in mutually consenting trade.
For someone who apparently considers himself to be an intellectual, omgucbs is remarkably prone to make childishly simplistic and broadly generalized judgments, never resorting to the use of facts, not even to manipulate them to fit his worldview. Conservatism = greed, and capitalism is a disease. If you disagree it's because you're an ignorant stupid greedy white old flatulent racist name caller. Very intellectual.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 29, 2008
"the natural result of free people engaging in mutually consenting trade."
that is not what modern capitalism is. Free people? We are not free. We are under the control of the government which is under control of large corporations….which have been created by capitalism. Capitalism, socialism, communism…etc. are economic philosophies. I just believe there is a greater philosophy out there. A combination of the best of all others….maybe. There must be something more equitable for all. The real problem is our worship of all things related to money. It is the single motivating factor in everything. This will only lead to the downfall of our nation and all others eventually. Lets think beyond our noses folks…or is that too broad for you?
"remarkably prone to make childishly simplistic and broadly generalized judgments, never resorting to the use of facts, not even to manipulate them to fit his worldview."
from your previous posts it seems you are talking about yourself…..or did you forget what you have written….shall I remind you?
"Conservatism = greed, and capitalism is a disease." The latter is what you would call a metaphor my friend…..it seems you are only proving my belief of most conservatives….unable to think outside of black and white. As for Conservatism = greed, if you would like I will break it down for you in terms of logical proof…..or would I just be wasting my time because you seem to be anything but logical.
Comment by omgucbs | October 30, 2008
It also seems noone wants to touch my thoughts on the end of work. Why is that? I would seriously like to know others thoughts on this because it is something that will effect all….regardless of party affiliation.
Comment by omgucbs | October 30, 2008
omgucbs,
You moved the goal posts, so I guess I have to kick again. No one is talking about "modern capitalism." There is no such thing. Capitalism is exactly what I have defined it to be. Anything outside that definition is not capitalism.
"We are not a free people." You are proving my point. Capitalism, by definition, requires free people engaging in relationships and exchanges (as defined above) unfettered by government intrusion. The fact we are not free is a failure of government, not capitalism.
"I just believe there is a greater philosophy out there. A combination of the best of all others…" Repeating yourself doesn't change facts, and only amounts to wishful thinking. There is no superior "system," because capitalism isn't a system. It's human nature, and it perfectly expresses that human nature.
"…equitable for all…" is a leftist worldview. Enforcing economic equity is also know as socialism. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, because it is contrary to human nature.
Worship of money is a sin, not a matter of law or government intervention. Therefore, the Gospel of Christ ought to be spread, not government power over people. Is that too broad for you?
Comment by Mountain Man | October 30, 2008
omgucbs,
"The end of work" is not a problem of capitalism. Capitalism didn't force people to choose training in a vocation with no demand. Capitalism doesn't cause companies to relocate overseas to escape the oppressive taxation and regulation of government.
Capitalism, absent government social engineering experiments, is the answer to your question.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 30, 2008
"There is no superior "system," because capitalism isn't a system."
ok mountain man….merriam and webster seem to disagree:
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
as it seems do you: "Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised, because it perfectly balances all the elements of human nature and economic forces. All other systems are interventionist, and therefore unbalanced."
you contradict yourself. Come back when you decide…..until then you only sound like a buffoon.
Comment by omgucbs | October 30, 2008
Ok, omgucbs, answer me this: Who created socialism? Who created fascism? Now, the money question: Who created capitalism?
I think we've all cut you a lot of slack here, and we would expect the same from you. If I use a rhetorical device like "the best system ever devised" in the context YOU defined as "economic systems," can I get some slack as well?
Ok, now, can you find it in you vast intellect to actually deal with the substance of my posts? Your attempt at misdirection refutes no point I have made.
And by the way, I have treated you with respect and answered your posts point-by-point. You in return call me names. Is that your version of intellectual?
Comment by Mountain Man | October 30, 2008
At first I thought we were being a little tough on omgucbs, but now I think he has shown himself for the yo-yo he is. But, I’ll give him one more chance. What is this end of work idea? Having spent my whole career in the machinery business, I can claim to be an expert on the subject of automation, productivity, and yes, eliminating humans from the production cycle. I am not the first and I won't be the last. It started way back when humans discovered fire and sharp stones. Soon some people became very good at knapping stones and others became cooks. That was the start of specialization and wealth creation. So what is the problem with that? Do you prefer the Gandhi solution where hundreds of people are working at spinning wheels or a textile mill where six people keep high production machines running and make a hundred times the output? Did you ever wonder why India is so poor? I’ll be waiting, but please no more buffoon comments.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 30, 2008
"from your previous posts it seems you are talking about yourself…..or did you forget what you have written….shall I remind you?"
Yeah, why don't you go ahead and do that. Remind me. Except to mock your utter and complete ignorance and simplicity, I never wrote a two word definition of a complex political philosophy, or generalized an entire group of people who subscribe to a particular political philosophy, or appealed to a mythical "third way" in place of a substantive argument or idea of my own.
"Conservatism = greed, and capitalism is a disease." The latter is what you would call a metaphor my friend…..it seems you are only proving my belief of most conservatives….unable to think outside of black and white."
Yes, I understand the metaphor. I guess you didn't quite understand what I was criticizing: your use of metaphor is worthy of a high school English class gold star. So give yourself a pat on the back. The substance of the metaphor is what makes you a simpleton. You simply throw out broadly generalized statements, with no basis in fact, and no accompanying use of facts or analysis, because you are an ideological hack who is either unwilling or unable to undertake any kind of serious thinking. You are here simply to try to troll, and you're too transparent to even be effective at that.
"As for Conservatism = greed, if you would like I will break it down for you in terms of logical proof…..or would I just be wasting my time because you seem to be anything but logical."
You keep threating to break out logic and facts like a bank a robber with a concealed gun, but you certainly haven't resorted to it so far. So I won't be holding my breath. I doubt you could pull off making an actual logical argument instead of appealing to generalities, ad hominem attacks, emotion, and value judgments anyway. Besides, if any of us disagreed with your juvenile and ignorant proclamations, we'd all just be stupid, backward, ignorant, illogical, greedy old Republican Nazi fascists, right? So, if you'd like to use our supposed deficiencies as a cop out to escape having to reveal your own, by all means be our guest. Saves us both a good deal of discomfort, doesn't it?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 30, 2008
A humorous take on Barack the "Socialist":
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/10/30/boll/
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | October 30, 2008
In addition to the return of the base rate to 39%, an increase in the capital gains tax from 15% to 25%; an increase in the estate tax (the "death tax") upon its reenactment in 2011; repeal of personal exemptions for people making over 250k (250k this week, that is); repeal of the Social Security payroll tax cap. If your best defense of punitive tax policies is that other presidents have made the same mistake, your case isn't all that great. What's really humorous is that Salon and its readership is suddenly defensive of Tricky Dicky and Ike Eisenhower. I noticed Jimmy Carter wasn't on the list. Too bad, since his tax policies are by far the closest in nature to the Messiah's.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 30, 2008
Dr. Kilovolt's humorous smears once again miss the mark. As always, the devil is in the details, and details is something he gives scant attention to. The cartoonish cartoon he likes so much makes all kinds of mistakes and/or deliberate misconstructions.
1) In his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith proposed taxes should be levied proportionally; not progressively. Smith wrote copiously on a number of topics and experimented with various ideas before fixing on the best of them. Wealth of Nations is Smiths definitive work on all things economic and comes later than other economic writings. So if he gave some thought to a progressive tax, this would supercede it.
2) The smear his cartoon makes of Eisenhower and Nixon bequeathing 91% and 70% tax rates, respectively, under these Republicans. However, it makes no mention these were down from 94% under Truman and maintained at the 70% level under LBJ to pay for his Great Society. Both Eisenhower and Nixon were saddled with Democratic Congresses, and it is Congress, not Presidents, who set these rates. Nixon tried to bring tax rates down, but Congress was determined to fund the LBJ programs indefinitely.
3) I won't dispute with him McCain is weak on tax reform, though he did briefly entertain the Fair Tax. Nonetheless, he is far to the right of Obama on keeping taxes where the are if not actually lowering them further.
Comment by Bob Stapler | November 2, 2008