What is Socialism
The biggest problem with Socialism is not what it is, but the misconceptions it represents and how that influences people to want to jump into this “government” mentality. Some think socialism is just people helping people and sharing things with one another. But what people like this desire is really something else other than what they currently have because all of this can be done under capitalism just as easily. The difference between the execution of the two is free will. What Socialism is behind the scenes is the push for hopelessness and the idea that you cannot make it on your own.
Socialism can be defined as a system in which central planning of the economy is maintained by government ownership of, well, everything because no one owns anything, not even your own body. These “acts of kindness” are pushed by forcible redistribution of income by government hands. In most cases, the government runs everything, owns everything, and redistributes wealth according to how it sees fit.
One assumption with Socialism is that the government is going to be helpful to people: giving them health care, providing employment, full care of their economic lives without asking them to think about how to accomplish it. This sure sounds like what Democrat candidates promise but rarely deliver in an effective manner.
The problem, though, is that the government body has proven time and time again that it is not your friend. So, Socialism executes its goals through centralized power in the hands of the government. There is no private sector volunteering to give civil help to society. There is no “mutual benefit” from free commerce in the marketplace. These freedoms only exist in capitalism. Socialism’s “mutual benefit” comes from what the government decides society needs regardless of its accuracy of actually being helpful or not. It is then executed through coercion and force.
The other significant thing that people do not recognize is what I just described is partly Marxism, otherwise known as Communism. I said partly because Socialism in itself is not a type of government; it is nothing more than an economic gear most commonly associated with Communism.
You may be thinking that Hitler did not seem like the type of guy that wanted to help people, and you would be partly correct, partly because he believed in helping the “true Aryan Germans.” But let us look at Germany prior to the years of fear and war. It was one of the most economically advanced countries on earth. Even Americans during the Great Depression went there for work. But the reason for this was the government’s control over industry and productivity.
Yes, it was great at the time, but look what happened when human nature came into play. Tyrannical tendencies came in, and the world became dark. This is an example of what happens when we give our government too much power.
In places like Venezuela, those with money just up and left because they did not want to play ball. Now it is one of the worst “advanced” countries economically speaking, and the people are miserable. Cuba is no different, but they live more in fear there. No government should have that kind of power.
Here is the bottom line; if it is voluntary, it is not socialism. Now some people believe that people “should be made to …” in reference to anything they want a community to accomplish. The problem with this in America is that it is the exact mentality we fought against in the Revolutionary War. Such thinking is extremely anti-America and shows why Americans push back so hard against Socialism. Additionally, it really should not be a surprise that Americans push back so hard against Marxist beliefs considering we put American Communists on trial just for being Communists. Most of America’s recent wars were about fighting the spread of Communism. So, why on earth would we want to adopt Socialism into our government?
Was Jesus a Socialist?
I hear an argument a lot as support for the idea of Socialism: Conservatives could not possibly be true Christians because clearly, Jesus would align more with Socialism. It might make sense with the short definition. Socialism is sharing; it is caring, compassionate people helping people. If that is all you know about socialism, then it makes sense that you might be inclined to believe that Jesus was a Socialist with his words about caring for the poor and your fellow man.
But when you understand the entire scope of what Socialism means, the argument is false. First, to make any argument about what Jesus would have been politically is a façade to prove that one’s own beliefs in politics are correct. Jesus was only ever interested in saving your soul. Earthly matters meant nothing to him and only mattered in how men interacted with one another. Jesus never suggested in any way that he was calling for the use of a central political power to force others to do good things. Yes, he desired for people to be good to one another, but a desire for others to do good and the forcing of others to do good are two different things. We would then have to ask whether or not God does affect freewill, which he arguably does not. That being said, it is human nature to ask unanswerable questions. So, for the sake of argument, we will dive into the question, “What would Jesus have been politically if we had to pick one, and why would that not be Socialism?”
To start, Jesus believed in hard work to create a means of living. Even he himself was a carpenter to earn his food. He did not believe that people should just be given things to make life “fair.” He also did not believe in this Robin Hood mentality of take from the rich and give to the poor. Yes, he encouraged the rich to give to the poor, but he wanted them to do it of their free will, not by force. He also did not think that someone was better or worse because of their status. It does not matter if they are rich or poor. What does matter is how they use the tools at their disposal to make a difference for others.
In fact, having more money just means that you have more of a responsibility to do good in this world because you are able to give more. But Jesus never advocated for government ownership of the means of production or the forcible redistribution of wealth, such as what Socialism would cause. So, my personal conclusion is that in this sense, Jesus was more likely a Capitalist.
Again, the question of what he would have been politically is entirely irrelevant. As a matter of fact, the type of government that does God’s bidding throughout the Bible is irrelevant. As an example, Egypt was controlled by a tyrannical government at the time of Moses, but it led to the sacrifices of freedom which brought the Jews out of Egypt, across the desert, and into the land of milk and honey, where the tribes of Israel flourished and spread the Word of God across the globe. This was thanks to Egypt’s central trading port. The Egyptians never had a place for God in their hearts at the start of their reign, but God used them as a catalyst to be a messenger of his Word. So, while we fight to keep capitalism in this country, the state of the government is nothing more than a tool in God’s plan. We are just along for the ride.
So, let us take the politics out of Socialism and just pretend for a moment that it is nothing more than a way of life, how we treat one another. Would Jesus be a Socialist then? Well, no. Jesus preached that a person should do good from his own heart. This makes a huge difference in both happiness and civility in the world.
What was his biggest goal? To bring people to God. Would you do that by force? Would Jesus convert someone by dragging them to church at gunpoint? Without inner change, there is no point. You need to encourage others to want to better themselves, whether that be religiously or out in society. Jesus was far more interested in what is in your heart rather than this good deed you are being forced to do. If you are being forced to do it, you are more likely filled with resentment. Does that sound like a world full of good people? To be truly generous, one has to do it of his own free will.
On the politician side, almost no politician does a good deed in front of the cameras without seeking the praise. It is how they think they will get elected. But these good deeds are not what Jesus wants from us, as beneficial as the deeds might be. In Matthew 6:2-4 (ESV) Jesus preaches, “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
A cynic might say that if we just left people to hopefully do good, most people are likely not going to do it. Compared to what though? The government? A government, when left to its devices, is only ever interested in self-gain. That government is somehow more compassionate than the people it supposedly represents is just an ignorant belief. There are too many temptations within a government that far too often take good people with good intentions and turn them into bad.
There is also no personal care from the government. If I am helping an individual, I now have accountability toward that individual. I do not get to just walk away after stepping in to help once, at least morally anyway. I now have an obligation to see that they are taken care of through to the end. What does a government do? They write a check and pop it in the mail. As I mentioned in my chapter on Social Programs, that far too often just makes a problem worse.
Psalm 118:8 (ESV) reads, “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.” So, how do we create accountability in the first place? Well, from where do our morals come? Our culture. And from where does our culture get them? If we look back to the founding of this country, we will see that the Founding Fathers based the structure of our society on Christian values. The morals we live by come from the Bible, most specifically from the Ten Commandments.
John Adams said in 1798, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Hatred of the Constitution vs Liberty and Virtue
When discussing whether or not President Biden would pack the court, he stated that his ideal judge would be one that ignores, not upholds, the Constitution whenever it conflicts with Leftist goals. He said, in a way only Biden can say, “I argued and continued to argue, and the bulk of academia agree with this now, is that if in fact there is a right to privacy in the Constitution—it’s not mentioned, it’s the Ninth Amendment, there are a number of rights in the Constitution—it’s also there are a number of other rights that exist that relate to how you view whether or not all the amendments taken together in the constitutional body actually protects people in their privacy. And so they’re the kind of judge—I would look to judges, potential nominees, they would have to acknowledge the fact that there are unenumerated rights that are nonetheless constitutional rights; they’re not mentioned by name in the Constitution.”
The Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What it does not guarantee is that people will be happy or equally wealthy. Those are things that people have to earn for themselves, and no government can give those things to them. Nor does the government have any right to take one person’s money and give it to someone else. Nowhere in the Constitution can such a thing be found. The government is given the privilege to govern by the Constitution. If it refuses to follow the Constitution faithfully, it has forfeited its right to govern. Madison argued in the Federalist number 10 that a government that protects possessions but not basic human rights is no government to be proud of.
In an attempt to end the filibuster, which requires the Senate to have a 60/100 vote, the Democrats claimed that it is unconstitutional for a minority in the Senate to block the majority vote. This statement is so false because our Founding Fathers specifically fought to design our government so that it would not rule by majority vote but instead give the minority a voice. This was the entire point behind the Electoral College. James Madison specifically fought for this when he was in Congress because he knew that the smaller states were going to feel unrepresented. This manipulation by the Democrats is not just unconstitutional; it is hypocritical.
Just this last presidency, when the Republicans held the majority in the Senate, the Democrats used the filibuster to their advantage and blocked bills. Now that they have the power in their hands, they want to ensure they keep it.
On the morning of January 13, 2022, the Senate Democrats were on the floor arguing against the filibuster and calling for its end. That same afternoon the Senate took a vote on the Nord Stream 2 sanctions that would have given the White House two weeks to impose travel restrictions, asset freezes, and bans on doing business with US companies for those involved with the natural gas pipeline that runs from Russia to Germany as an attempt to stop Russia from invading Ukraine.
Six Democrats came across the aisle “passing” the bill. But then the Democrats came in with a, wait for it, filibuster saying that it should require 60 votes to pass. The very same day that they were attacking the filibuster, they used it. The Democrats have become the party of hypocrisy, not science.
The Left has all sorts of ideas to alter the way our government works, such as doing away with the Electoral College because they feel that it is too restrictive. In Federalist number 51, James Madison wrote, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
While addressing the Virginia ratifying convention, Madison warned, “We are in a wretched condition. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.” His point was that our collective ideas and desires are too mixed to allow for a cohesive goal to be met without proper institutions to regulate a government’s goals. While the pursuit of happiness is the overarching goal for Americans, happiness is defined differently from person to person. So, a law passed that benefits one individual may not the next. Therefore, a balance must be met.
Survivors of Communism
My day job allows me to meet a lot of unique people. Some of the most impactful conversations I have had with individuals are with those who have escaped from communist countries.
To start, Alyona (not her real name) grew up in Russia when it became the Soviet Union. The wealthy class funded the lower class to take over the government using similar “progressive movements” similar to those we are currently dealing with here in America to gain support and take control of power. Ironically, once the government had been taken over, the lower progressive class cast aside the upper class that had funded them. In the view of “fairness,” a Socialism economy was put into place, giving the government control of all belongings to be distributed evenly.
As an example of this, Alyona was a waitress, and her father was a doctor. Technically speaking, her father made more, but the money never came to his hands. All wages were sent to the government, and everyone was handed their share evenly. So, through this socialist system, a doctor made the exact same amount as a waitress.
But money was not the problem at this point. Products were hard to come by, and shelves were regularly empty. When you walked by a store and saw a line, it was customary to drop whatever you were doing and get in that line. You did not know what you would find at the end of the line, but you knew you would miss out on something potentially important. Other than that, there was not really anything on which to spend your money. It became a very stale society, and technically everyone had what they needed to survive. With this type of culture, it should be obvious that no one had any goals. It was not because they were not allowed, but because of this robotic way of living, no one knew even to have goals. If you were born into this, you did not know any better.
Now one major element that was policed was religion. Like some of the ancient cities in the Bible, you would be arrested for worshiping God. Why was this? Because in order for a tyrannical leader to be all-powerful, he could not have competitors. He needed to be the people’s god. What is funny about this is that the country completely flipped after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Vladimir Putin’s takeover; you would now be in trouble if you did not take Christmas off to celebrate.
Speaking of the collapse, that leads me to the most interesting point in Alyona’s story. She talked about being very concerned about America heading down a similar road into communism, based on all that is going on right now: the progressive and woke movement, BLM and Marxist beliefs being pushed into our schools, Congress chipping away at our Constitution. What is interesting, though, is that her fear is not for that initial communist state. It is for the inevitable collapse. When the Soviet Union collapsed under a system that could not sustain itself, the entire country went into anarchy. The government was no longer supplying daily needs, so they had to be stolen to survive. Break-ins and murder became a part of the culture. The only ones with any sense of control in the country were the different mafias. The reason Vladimir Putin came into power was simply that he had the largest gang.
Alyona eventually escaped Russia and now lives a very successful life in America, but she is very afraid. I try to comfort her and tell her that Americans are different, and we will not back down from a fight for our God-given rights. She sees it a little, but she is still afraid that it is not enough.
Another individual I met was a handyman who loves America. He came to America after escaping Communist-controlled Poland. During his time there, he was imprisoned for trying to stand up for his rights and protect his family. Now he works hard in America, but he too is afraid because of what is going on. The trouble is that America is the last stand. There is nowhere left to run in the world.
These two only touch the surface of all those who have escaped from a communist country. Professional pianist Elida Dakoli became the ambassador for the Victims of Communism in Dallas, Texas, to help others who suffer from a dark past. She has been adamantly against Socialism, declaring, “Remember, socialism is a cover-up for communism … They want control, and the only way to that is by brainwashing this Amazon generation. Don’t fall for it.”
In her own story as a child in Communist-controlled Albania, her family was attacked, and some were killed because of their steadfast belief in freedom. Her own great-grandfather was poisoned to death by the Communist government. In an interview with The Epoch Times, she said, “On my mother’s side, her grandfather was a prominent pro-democracy political figure. On my father’s side, his father was a successful businessman who refused to turn over his self-earned property to the Party. Both were disruptors of the order the Party had worked hard to impose.” Her grandfather on her mother’s side, Hysen Myshketa, was poisoned by his nurse in the hospital after surviving being shot twice in the streets by a Communist assassin.
As Texas became the fourth state to officially recognize November 7 as “Victims of Communism Memorial Day” in 2021, Dakoli took the opportunity to remind us that Karl Marx clearly revealed in his Manifesto of the Communist Party that Socialism is the first step toward Communism. What is most alarming about Socialism is the turning trend among the younger generation today. She stated, “This ideology is managing to infiltrate their minds through the usual lie as a perfect solution, playing on the uncertainties of capitalism. Capitalism is the only option that offers you the freedom of family life, success, and liberty. Our goal is to educate new generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of communism to ensure that the millions who suffered—and still suffer—under communist regimes are not forgotten.”
During the 1940s, Dakoli talked about the teachings of the communists in Albania, saying, “To justify their actions, they always used the Marxist-Leninist slogan ‘in the name of the people.’ But who were these people? The ‘people’ were terrorized.” I cannot help but feel the comparison with today’s Leftist politicians with Democrat slogans that do not actually mean what they say: “Build Back Better, Voter Rights Act, Black Lives Matter.”
On January 14th, 1945, the “Sequestration Decision 278” went into effect, and an order when out that all movable and immovable property be sequestered by the new government. Dakoli’s paternal grandfather, Sadik Dakoli, was arrested, and his business and family’s personal belongings were taken. Dakoli recalls her father’s story about her grandmother Jaja, “After ransacking their home, the communist militants violently ripped the gold coin necklace from her neck and the wedding ring from her finger. The soldiers did not even allow enough time to vacate for the children to put on shoes or put on coats. They just kicked them out of their own home.”
This is what Socialism actually is. This is what people need to learn about its truth. It is not the happy “everyone is treated equally” utopia for which people dream. It is a tyrannical rule of tearing down and being handed crumbs to survive. Socialism “has not properly been tried” is a false statement because what Socialism is has been executed perfectly. People are just in denial about what it truly is: a gateway to Communism, a gateway to suffering. This is America, and we do not suffer. We endure.
This has been an excerpt from History vs Leftist Myths: America’s War on Information. To read the full chapter on this subject as well as other controversial topics, please check out our book available on Amazon. Your Amazon review is also greatly appreciated.
Sources
[i] John Adams, “From John Adams To Massachusetts Militia,” National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Archived Records, October 11. 1798, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102.
[ii] George Neumayr, “The Anti-Constitution of Joe Biden,” The American Spectator, Associated Newspapers, October 15, 2020, https://spectator.org/biden-bork-constitution/.
[iii] Ralph Ketcham, James Madison: A Biography, Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1990.
[iv] Peta Evans, “Pianist Persecuted in Communist Albania Warns Against Socialism in the US: ‘Don’t Fall for It’,” The Epoch Times, Associated Newspapers, November 6, 2021, https://www.theepochtimes.com/pianist-persecuted-in-communist-albania-warns-against-socialism-in-the-us-dont-fall-for-it_4058129.html?.
Comentarios