By the Way, Communism is Still Bad
Most Americans believe that the fight against communism ended with the collapse of the USSR in 1991. However, the communists seem to have “followed us home” - to borrow a moniker. President Ronald Reagan famously stated before the British House of Commons in 1982:
The march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history . . .
Now over 25 years later, we must ask ourselves: in what direction are freedom and democracy marching? The entire Democratic field of political candidates - as well as a few Republicans - are openly in favor of socialist policies.
Simply stated, socialism and communism are the belief in the idea that society can be improved by government control over the distribution of wealth and property. Being called a communist used to carry a sting similar to being called “satanic,” but neither socialism nor communism are discreetly defined external threats to the American way of life as they once were. Instead, socialism grows from within.
The beating heart of communism and socialism in today’s society is the “progressive” income tax, whereby money is taken from citizens at rates based 
on their pay and redistributed to others in the form of welfare, earned income tax credits, student loans, Medicaid, et al. The redistribution does not stop at philanthropy’s doorstep - even airlines get their share. I want to re-emphasize the term “progressive,” as this is how many socialistic liberals are now self-identifying - including Hillary Clinton.
Communism lost the battle of ideas long ago, yet it somehow still smolders in the minds of the misguidedly well-intentioned. The re-emergence of communism among the common American now takes root in the following justification:
If we don’t provide [insert socialist program here], poor people won’t be taken care of.
The problems with this justification are both pragmatic and moral.
First, this justification for socialism is pragmatically flawed. The very existence of the sentiment that “poor people must be taken care of” suggests that communism is not necessary. If people are compassionate, as their concerns suggest, the market will demand that the poor and indigent be provided for. From this you will see philanthropy abound. Non-profit charitable organizations will come to fill the void and use the money in an infinitely more efficient way than the status quo. For those that don’t believe that, you need only to look at history and ask yourself how the U.S. bothered to exist before welfare or, more specifically, before 1933. Indeed, our history is what has made this country great - a history of freedom and free markets. It’s only in recent time have we seen such things as the decline and disappearance of charity hospitals in the wake of federal social programs.
Despite being both correct and empirically proven by more then a century of American history, this explanation rarely satisfies socialists - principally out of fear that if people were allowed to give as they saw fit that somehow it “would not work.” The root of this distrust is almost unfathomable, but apparently that they do not envision themselves giving if not forced to give by the government, and impute this solipsism on society at large. Some corner of human psychology tugs at them - people don’t want to have to do something unless everybody has to do it. Selfishness motivating government-forced giving? If this accusation were true, it would explain much. Oh the irony!
Freedom is the real solution, as it so often is. There is no amount of taxation or federal programs that could rival the inherent kindheartedness of the American people. These inefficient programs only stand in the way of the market, co-opting the philanthropic impulse and creating an entitlement society.
Second, communism does violence to individual liberty and is therefore morally wrong.
The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive– and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
Suggesting that the government, as opposed to private parties, should provide for the poor, also suggests that people should surrender their freedom to give. More broadly, it suggests that people should trade the right to their property and the fruits of their labor for a promise from the government to spend it wisely and efficiently for the benefit of the poor. It further suggests that Americans themselves are incapable of caring for their neighbor better than would a vague mass of people a thousand miles away buried under mountains of paperwork, tedious rules, and other bureaucratic largesse. Such a viewpoint is obviously wrong and does direct violence to individual liberty and undermines the very core of the American philosophy.
Nevertheless, there are major political factions seeking to tempt the American people in to trading their liberties for government do-gooding.
The abandonment of freedom is the prerogative of the socialist because they thrive off of political power. When you eliminate the power of the free market by force of government, the only remaining currency among the people is authoritarian political coercion. It is at this juncture that our natural human habits start working against us. The ruthless and amoral quickly clamor to rise to the top of the political ladder, lured by the prospect of absolute authority. The prospect of being so powerful that you can micro-manage millions of human lives is the intoxicating fantasy of a deranged few.
In the end, this is why presidential and congressional approval ratings have a difficult time of rising above 20%. Nobody trusts the politician to do any thing other than pursuing their singular interest: maintaining power. Socialism has ushered in the death of the statesman and the birth of the modern politician.
Socialism is still bad. It’s just as bad as when the German National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI) was responsible for the deaths of 21 million. It’s just as bad as when 40 million Chinese died under the communist regime of Mao Zedong. It’s just as bad as when 62 million people were either put to death or died at the hands of socialist famine during the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. (Take the communism atrocity test).
We should all ask ourselves: do we want freedom, or do we just want somebody to take care of us? History has already shown us the correct answer.
We want freedom. It’s time that socialism be thrown back to the ash heap of history to rot alongside fascism, monarchism, military dictatorships, and all other theories of government that stand tyrannically opposed to the rights of the people.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Related Posts
- No related posts
amen