Socialism: A Quick Comparative Summary

You students have read and studied how the United States remarkably rose to a prominent position of global power within a mere two centuries of its official founding. From its beginning, people have dreamed of coming to America, regardless of personal cost. What did America offer that would cause them to leave everything familiar to fly, swim, boat or walk their way to live here? That answer has always been individual freedom and opportunity.

It is our unique system of government that provides for and protects freedom and opportunity: to build skills and knowledge with education, to work and perhaps create a business, to worship as you wish, live where you choose, acquire property and so on. These choices are yours.

In comparison, let’s look at how the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines socialism:

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

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=s&file=social02

Note that a socialist government advocates the ownership and administration of how and where goods are produced and to whom they are distributed. In contrast, while there are many federal, state and local government employees, American businesses are owned and operated by the people in a free market economy.

American business owners determine the production and distribution of the goods or services they choose to produce. They decide this based on what they predict their customers (the “market”) will purchase or use. Since they either benefit – or don’t, business owners strive to make wise choices that will benefit themselves, their families and their employees.

This establishes a close cause and effect relationship from their point of production to their point of actual sales. In other words, they are quickly rewarded for their good decisions, or penalized for bad ones. In contrast, socialism moves many of these rights and decisions to the discretion of leaders at the top of the government. There is less cause and effect, so there are fewer rewards for smart, hard work.

Second, private property ownership is an American staple. This is also key. When people are deprived of the right to acquire their own property and control their own lives, they are dis-incentivized to work and produce and invent (a hallmark of America). As a domino effect, resources and opportunities predictably dwindle.

Not all socialist countries have experienced significant societal unrest, but history is replete with socialist populations that finally rebelled. Demands for increased freedoms, attempts at free elections and civil unrest such as demonstrations, riots, and other violence have resulted. In response, leaders facing such loss of control over their people often suppress them by imprisonment or force via the military or police. Such has been the case in present day Cuba and Venezuela. The latter is a real-time example of socialism in total, predictable meltdown. (We will look at this in greater depth in an upcoming post.)

It has been repeated countless times that “it doesn’t matter who’s in public office; they’re all the same!” But just because something is stated doesn’t make it true. At its very core, government is ultimately about control over the individual, his or her actions and the right to private property ownership. So when it comes to who’s in office, it matters. And when it comes to pro-socialist ideals, it matters a great deal.

Being aware of this basic context will help us as we try to expand our understanding of the U.S. Constitution in the weeks ahead.