Will America Become Socialist? (Part 1), by Andrew Joppa

Will America Become Socialist??? (Part I)

by Andy Joppa

 

We are facing the bleak possibility of America becoming a Socialist enclave.  It might happen as simply as Trump losing and Bernie Sanders (among several others) winning the presidency in 2020. If America succumbs to this seduction can the entire world be far behind?

 

With most of our younger citizens already yielding to the rhetoric of Socialist enticements; with the schools advocating for it and, with the media offering no resistance to this abomination, it is not a stretch of logic to see this coming to pass.

 

For this reason, I will try to offer as much intellectual ammunition as possible to those who believe in the free market system and the attendant rights of the individual.  I have chosen two authors to supply the insights and the rebuttals that may become more and more necessary for the politically aware and active citizen.

 

Today’s essay is a series of comments I have pieced together from America’s greatest antagonist to the Socialist threat in the middle of twentieth century, Ayn Rand.  Her words in this regard have inspired millions and continue to have profound impact.  Tomorrow, I will post an essay by Thomas Sowell, the most widely published and respected economist in this country’s history. Both these remarkable people will supply you with all you need to know to defeat the Socialist economic/political system that has destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions across the globe and threatens to do the same in America.

 

I could have invested my own time and written my own words on this topic…. but…for what purpose?  It could not have improved on the ideas offered by these two great Americans.

 

Socialism

My thanks to Ayn Rand

(the pronoun references are from an earlier America)

 

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

 

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

 

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in N*zi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

 

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

 

There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.

 

When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.

 

When one observes the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine-gun fire—one can no longer believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated by benevolence and by the desire to achieve men’s welfare.

 

No man of authentic benevolence could evade or ignore so great a horror on so vast a scale. Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs.

 

The socialists had a certain kind of logic on their side: if the collective sacrifice of all to all is the moral ideal, then they wanted to establish this ideal in practice, here and on this earth. The arguments that socialism would not and could not work, did not stop them: neither has altruism ever worked, but this has not caused men to stop and question it. Only reason can ask such questions—and reason, they were told on all sides, has nothing to do with morality, morality lies outside the realm of reason, no rational morality can ever be defined.

 

The fallacies and contradictions in the economic theories of socialism were exposed and refuted time and time again, in the Nineteenth Century as well as today. This did not and does not stop anyone: it is not an issue of economics, but of morality. The intellectuals and the so-called idealists were determined to make socialism work. How? By that magic means of all irrationalists: somehow.

 

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

 

Both “socialism” and “fascism” involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates “the vesting of ownership and control” in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.

 

Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.

 

In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say “more honest,” not “better”—because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government—and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects.

 

The N*zis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the N*zi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the N*zis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, socialism. In its N*zi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. “Socialism” for the N*zis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism—in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

 

“To be a socialist,” says Goebbels, “is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”

 

By this definition, the N*zis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.

 

************************************

The insights of Rand were valid when she wrote them and have become even more so now, when the bastion of the free market system, The United States of America.

Check Also

Let’s Make 2020 the Year of the Constitution, by Andrew Joppa

Let’s Make 2020 the Year of the Constitution by Andy Joppa   As the Constitution …