Why Socialism Failed

By Mark J. Perry • June 1995 • Volume: 45 • Issue: 6

Email This Post • 141 comments •

Filed Under: Featured

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers’ paradise" of Cuba?

The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale.

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

Incentives Matter

Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.

By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.

As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.

We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.

The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: "give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security." As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, social security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.

Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving towards freedom.

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

There Are 141 Responses So Far. »

Comment by Earl Keegan on 31 December 2008:

What claptrap. socialism is what came out of stallinist communism. Yes, there was no incentives but that was due to the army taking over the communist ideology. The new world order is a socialist plot and so our opinions do not matter, only the opinions of the accepted are valid. Obama is now appointing the accepted version they wish to push with their socialist policies. Yes America is turning socialist and the Government wants to and will control every aspect of daily life.
Communist Democracy would be a better deal as the incentives would simply be that you will be rewarded for the uplifting of the community. The free market system could still thrive in a communist democracy. This crisi in the economy is part and parcel of the ill advised social agendas that have swept the world in the name of freedom. It has all amounted to making every individual a commodity based on the possible man hours they will be available. Thus we are all just numbers in the machine. I for one woiuld rather be a ghost in the machine and take my man hours out of the collective pool. There are rules and laws to forbid any one of us from truly living outside the boxes constructed. Gabreola Island was a thriving alternative communist encampment. The groups were removed by the government through law and replaced with condominiums. Think for yourselves and research on your own to find the truth buried beneath your nose. Even the education system has been handed over to the socialists. They believe that a lucid populace would be too hard to control and came up with the Bell Curve to guarantee the eventual dumbing down of the PEOPLE. It is working and now in Canada we have the Whole Language program to help dumb down the public. If olny a cretian anoumt of us can raed this then it bcomees esiear to cotnorl the oens taht connat fugire it out. Why else would there be so many private schools other than to guarantee an elitist familial line in power.
Wake up, this is Satans System not Gods way.
Comment by Al on 31 December 2008:

SATAN’S SYSTEM is the Free Market? Well Earl, you are not the first to use that perspective, no matter how faulty. One problem with that Earl. Socialism and communism are both FORCED UPON PEOPLE UNWILLING. Christian teachings for giving and caring for the needy is via FREE WILL. And therein the difference lies, not only for the recipient, but for the provider. YOU ARE SO OBVIOUSLY NOT A CHRISTIAN SIR.

Texas T-Sip
Comment by Earl Keegan on 31 December 2008:

Al

I am a minister of the church of universal brotherhood. I have no choice but to deal with history as well. The forcing was done by military regimes and not by the people. You sir have ignored the obvious and so must be very well uneducated as the government prefers. Research Marx and read his opinions on communism and you will see for yourself that it is a better system. Even the church has had its fair share of fascists and no one is tossing christianity away. Education sir is important to all at all stages of life. Get a library card and use it. you sound like a postcard for the elitists that run the government. But thanks for your words anyways. Perhaps you should talk about the issues instead of the process.
Comment by Earl Keegan on 31 December 2008:

Oh,one more thing. Just where are the terrorists being held by the Americans. Guantanamo Bay In Cuba. Does that mean America is now socialist or not?
Comment by Al on 31 December 2008:

Earl,

The “Religion of Opra” does not constitute the religious beliefs I eluded to in my earlier post. I GOOGLE CHURCH OF UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. My belief still stands:

YOU ARE SO OBVIOUSLY NOT A CHRISTIAN SIR
Comment by Earl Keegan on 31 December 2008:

A simple search has left you confused. My opinion stands as well you are one of the uneducated and easily manipulated masses. Good luck under your new leader, Barack Obama.
LMAO
I am still a minister of the christian church.
Comment by Al on 31 December 2008:

Earl,

The Universal Brotherhood is a not for profit organization (505C?). Nowhere does it say that “The Brotherhood” believes in Jesus Christ. It is a church of IRS convenience, in my humble opinion. I’m not a B-HO supporter by a long shot and your continuing line of my supposed lack of education marks you as a standard name-calling leftist. The “louder you scream, the truer it is” mentality. If you’re a socialist or communist, I don’t care. I want neither form of gov’t in my life.
Comment by Earl Keegan on 31 December 2008:

No we believe in His Father first and foremost. He was a bridge we had to cross to reach the Fathers forgiveness and have our names put into the book of life. Thank you for calling me a leftist I really appreciate that, as it shows that “by my own hand will I make ny way”.
I am done screaming I dont want to be shot by a fundamentalist christian thanks.
Comment by Levon on 3 January 2009:

Well written article. The three P’s seem to be very important to maintain an economy.
From an every mans point of view, a free market is preferable.
I tend to lean towards free markets however I am not convinced it is impossible to have a socialist system with a centrally planned economy and also factor in the three P’s mentioned above. Capitalism elegantly provides the three P’s with minimal effort. But this does not mean it’s impossible for socialism to provide these as well to maintain a healthy economy. We just haven’t seen it put into practice yet.

I worry because historically, socialism has failed, and I believe this is due to corruption and despotism. However I often ponder how we, being comprised of millions of “individual” cells would be economically labelled. Evolution has worked up to this point and it is not clear to me that the cells of our bodies practice free markets or are somehow centrally planned.

What is the preferable arrangment for meeting the needs and wants of some humans, all humans, and all life??
Comment by Moses Frank on 20 January 2009:

IMHO, any opinion should be considered based on its face value.
At the same time, it is hard to separate the person from his/her ingrained opinions about religion.

Freedom and tyranny can be expressed in many ways and at many levels.

A person can be so overtaken with religious beliefs that they become virtually enslaved to a set of rules. It is like a virtual cage.

Other person can be in the deepest prison and still feel free.
It’s all relative.
Comment by Francisco on 31 January 2009:

I’m from South America, just wanted to let you know that the church of universal brotherhood in Ecuador happened to be a big scam. Lots of people were taken their money away. Their slogan “Stop suffering” has been changed by people for “Stop burglarizing”. I wouldn’t take any word of those guys seriously.

Regards
Comment by Brian on 4 February 2009:

Excellent article by Mr. Perry, although I wish he had been more forceful by outlining more clearly how socialism ultimately usurps liberty. He points out quite eloquently that humans inately understand resource scarcity – it’s right in front of their eyes (even dogs understand private property!)- so human tendency is to efficiently manage scarce resources, reflected in prices, profits, and property.

But since socialist governments ignore the reality of resource scarcity, the only way they can change human behavior is by force and compulsion. The most severe examples of course are the police states such as the euphemistic “German Democratic Republic” (East Germany, which was neither Democratic nor a Republic) or the People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), etc. In these fine countries, people are sent to re-education camps and punished for exercising free choice.

The less severe forms of control are what de Toqueville called “soft tyrannies”, the soft left that uses the same Orwellian euphemisms (welfare payments called “tax credits”), political correctness as re-education, and regulations and laws that limit freedoms and control behavior.
Comment by Sean on 5 February 2009:

Communism is a political system that sounds great in theory, but can you name one that has actually worked?

Communism and Socialism are systems that promote mediocrity, feed the feeble, and encourage the weak.

Take a look at the Quality of Life index. The first Communist country on that list is Cuba at the fifty-second position. Congrats.
Comment by Billy on 10 February 2009:

Interesting that Chritianity is thrown around in third form. Christ described very eloquently the likeness of God in Matthew Chapter 18. The land owner did not have a communal agreement with ALL workers. He dealings and contracts were specifically individual.

In fact is was the first worker who had a grievance with the land owner AFTER he agreed to his work and pay. How sad that individual responsibility is so lacking. Americans are looking to socialism for their own personal “do overs”. Man up, take responsibility. Own the success or failure of your own doings. Capitalism and freedom have no equal in the success they have achieved.
Comment by dem on 15 February 2009:

Your arguments are true but your conclusion is wrong. Capitalism fails without socialist aspects. No one believes in a truly capitalist society.

How many people really want privatized roads? How many people want to have homeless wandering around on the streets or spreading diseases? Monopolies must be regulated or nationalized otherwise we could have power companies going out of control. They could kill millions.

A socialist foundation lets capitalism flourish. Without it business will be crippled and innovation will suffer. How many startups will there be if failing might mean you will starve to death? There needs to be the right balance between the government giving a helping hand and a bit of support and completely running the show. Plus, capitalism can go too far at times and sacrifice others. There is a moral responsibility that must also be taken into consideration.
Comment by Rom on 16 February 2009:

Hey I have no problem with free markets, it is when the benefits are tilted in favour of the land owners, and the rich who tilt their system to benefit themselves that I have a problem.

In a free market if there is a food shortage it is rational to raise the prices of food, but is this how humans should really behave? Would anyone really like to live in such a society.

Socialism without the State like bakhunin desired would be best.
Comment by orlyt on 20 February 2009:

“Socialism without the State like bakhunin desired would be best.”

Ah the impossible paradox..
LOL!!!!!
Comment by Andrew on 24 February 2009:

“How many people really want privatized roads? How many people want to have homeless wandering around on the streets or spreading diseases? Monopolies must be regulated or nationalized otherwise we could have power companies going out of control. They could kill millions.

A socialist foundation lets capitalism flourish. Without it business will be crippled and innovation will suffer. How many startups will there be if failing might mean you will starve to death? There needs to be the right balance between the government giving a helping hand and a bit of support and completely running the show. Plus, capitalism can go too far at times and sacrifice others. There is a moral responsibility that must also be taken into consideration.”

- I would prefer a private company build a road over the government. It would be cheaper and more durable. Plus, ever heard of EZ-Pass/Smart Trip??

- Homeless people running around? How is that related to the free market? Plus, I would argue that Democratic programs like welfare keep people poor because it is a disincentive to learning the habits of responsibility

- Monopolies are created by government regulations, not the free market. Even if a power company went “out of control” (raised prices), people wouldn’t use electricity because they couldn’t afford it. The Democrats’ dream!

- The free market fosters innovation! Most startups don’t get traction because regulations keep them from entering the market. How can you start a business when the government gets to decide what is useful for society? We couldn’t even have cars today with this climate. “You want to make huge machines out of metal, and drive them at really high speeds?! And let teenagers drive them too?!?! Think of all the deaths!”
Comment by David on 25 February 2009:

Its interesting to find active comments on an article written in 1995 titled “Why Socialism Failed”. Many are writing articles in 2009 titled “Why Capitalism Failed”.

You have to look no further in this article then this line to understand that it is not serious scholarly work:

“The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits.”

No where does the author correlate the concept of profits and doing something that serves the “public interest”. Profits can be the result of actions that are categorically opposed to the larger public interest. There are literally thousands of cases that demonstrate this so it is ludicrous to make the above statement and expect to be taken seriously.

To Andrew above, can you – or anyone else – please provide a list of all of the great private sector innovations since this article was written? The private sector is really good at innovating new ways to make greater profits. That’s really about it. Nearly everything in your life that makes your life better either came from a not-for-profit entity or from a government funded program.
Comment by Ed on 26 February 2009:

David,

You pose your last rhetorical question while typing on either a PC, developed by IBM/Microsoft and now produced by thousands of companies, or a Mac developed and produced by Apple. The irony escapes you, I’m sure.
Comment by opelske on 28 February 2009:

That\’s interesting regarding the 1995 articles on the failure of socialism and 2009 on the failure of capitalism. Seems like capitalism is failing because of socialism and its stifling and chronic redistributions of power and wealth, along with its crippling business regulations. I do not agree with David\’s comment that everything in our life that makes it better came from a not-for-profit entity or from a government funded program – what things are you referring to and exactly who benefited?
Comment by Dan on 1 March 2009:

Americans are frustrated by a broken economy brought fourth by a series of poor decisions all around. The government mismanaged, Businesses mismanaged, and individuals have mismanaged. The insanity of our modern time is that the irresponsible hold the power to rob from the responsible and continue their irresponsible mismanagement of money and resources. Those of us who have been responsible must organize and fight for our right to not be punished for the poor decisions of some. How quickly failed gov\’t, business, and individuals want to support the \"common good\" after bankrupting themselves out of their own self-interests.
Comment by DD on 4 March 2009:

Lack of incentives is merely a secondary deficiency in Socialism. Economic Calculation is impossible in Socialism, as Ludwig Von Mises conclusively demonstrated in “Economic Calculations in the Social Commonwealth”.

For a price system to form, freedom of action by individuals is vital. In a “planned” economy, no price system can emerge, therefore, one cannot plan. Socialism ultimately ends in Chaos. The Soviet Union was not a pure socialistic society, due to the fact that they were able to resort to prices in other semi-capitalistic countries.

As Mises writes:
‘The Paradox of “planning” is that it cannot plan, because of the absence of economic calculations. What is called a planned economy is no economy at all.’
Comment by YerMawm on 8 March 2009:

Nice article. Socialists think the answer to failed socialism, is more socialism.

Pure socialism does not take into account for the greatest problem of them all….human doings running the show. It is why the constitution was written the way that it is….to bind human doings in government down.

Give me the paradox of thrift, over the paradox of planning any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Comment by Ryan on 10 March 2009:

David,

I can understand your frustration in what appears to be a failed free-market capitalist system in America. A lot of media pundits love to say that capitalism failed and that laissez-faire got us into this mess, BUT THEY ARE MISINFORMED.

America has not been living in a true free market since 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created. The Fed is the epitome of central planning, and is the primary reason the US economy has gotten into the mess it has now, and in the Great Depression and in many other bad economic times. For all the reasons listed in the article of why socialism failed, the same can be said for the Fed and the economy it produces.

The price in this case is the price of money, and the Fed arbitrarily sets that price through various tactics, and over the course of its history it has reduced the value of the dollar by over 90%. Do you think it is natural that we pay 10 times as much for a loaf of bread than our grandparents? It isn\’t natural, it is because of the Fed. There are few other kinds of \"price fixing\" that can hurt an economy as bad as that of fixing the price of money.

It is also because of the Fed that the profit and loss system has gotten so screwed up lately. Why do you think all these failed companies are still around? BECAUSE OF THE FED AND ITS LOANS TO THOSE COMPANIES AND THE GOVERNMENT. Where does the Fed get its money to loan? FROM THIN AIR! They can counterfeit money all day, into the trillions, but if you or I try to print a few dollars we go to jail. The Fed is also the reason all these companies and many citizens of the US got into trouble in the first place. They distort the market with artificially low interest rates which cause bad investments to be made.

Then what about private property rights? There is no better way for a government to confiscate your hard earned money than inflation. Inflation is the increase of the amount of currency, which tends to cause prices to rise. Inflation is not just rises in prices as many people believe. If there was no Fed, inflation would be almost nothing. From the creation of this fine country until 1913 when the Fed was created, the overall trend of inflation was A FLAT LINE. Yes that is right, a dollar from 1790 would buy about the same as that from 1910. But once the Fed was created, WATCH OUT, inflation has gone through the roof and has caused our quality of life to decline or remain stagnant in spite of RAPID TECHONOLOGICAL CHANGE which should greatly increase quality of life! We should not have to work so hard and go into so much debt to live the lives we want. It is only because of inflation that we have to do this. Inflation is like a hidden tax, in that it allows the government to do all the nefarious things it wants without directly taxing the population (which of course people can see, and everyone hates.)

Of all the evils caused by the Fed, inflation is probably the worst, and because of what has been happening in the last six months, America may be in store for some of the worst inflation yet, which could completely destroy the dollar. And I bet you will see people try to blame that on the free market too, which all along it was the EVIL FEDERAL RESERVE that caused this problem.

Finally as for your comment that all innovations come from the government: come on, don\’t be silly. In my opinion the government can do nothing as efficiently as the private market, and I guarantee any innovations they have come up with were created for much more cost than they would have in the free market. To site some examples: while the government created the internet (for MILITARY PURPOSES by the way) it was the free market that made it what it is today. Many of the computer innovations we take for granted today were created in Xerox Parc, a research arm of Xerox, which last I heard was not a part of the government. Heck if the government was running things, we probably wouldn\’t even have personal computers, but just a bunch of giant mainframes run by the government. An Apple MacBook Pro and the Mac OS X operating system that runs it was all done by Apple, not part of the government. Same for the iPhone. Heck the cell phone itself was created by Dr Martin Cooper, who worked for Motorola, not a part of the government.

The lightbulb? Not government. The car? Not government. The airplane? Not government. I could go on and on and on.

Now despite this, I do think the government can play a role in funding research. I do think the government needs to have some regulations to control abuses of the free market. But what we have now for regulations is WAY over the top, and most new laws tend to favor existing big businesses and hurt small business, so in many ways the government and big businesses are in bed together.

So I say no thanks to socialism in America and let\’s bring back the TRUE free market by ending the Federal Reserve: http://endthefed.us/
Comment by DD on 10 March 2009:

David,

You said: “Profits can be the result of actions that are categorically opposed to the larger public interest. There are literally thousands of cases that demonstrate this ”

To the larger public interest? Does that mean that the “larger public” (what ever that means) has to approve my personal choices of how to consume my income, or for that matter, how to run my own personal life?

What is a “public interest”?
There is no such thing as “public interest” but only the self-interst of the different individuals the comprise the “public”. “public interest” is euphemism for “political interest”.
Comment by Matt Willett on 19 March 2009:

“Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century.”

Socialism is from the 19th century.
Comment by Evan on 23 March 2009:

If you honestly think Obama has ulterior- nation-ruling- motives, you’re absolutely insane. A few socialist policies could help our economy A LOT. It doesn’t mean we’re going to be the next north korea.

Remember Sweden in 1992? A banking system in crisis after the collapse. An economy with rising unemployement. A market-oriented government struggling away from collapse?

You know what they did? Nationalized a majority of their banks. You know what happened? It worked, incredibly well. Norway and Finland followed example and- suprise- it worked.

But I guess this is all communist bullsh*t, and we should just make more tax cuts. That’ll fix it right up. Nothing like a band-aid for a bullet wound.
Comment by Daryl on 2 April 2009:

I am a small businessman just trying to make a living for myself and my family by providing a service to people and businesses that want to use it. I don’t want, and certainly don’t need, the government, any government, telling me how to run my business. All of you that are touting any form of socialism, small or large, as a good thing, simply don’t know what you are talking about. When has government ever fixed anything? Never! And don’t even bother trying to point out ant government programs for the last 100 years. They are all abject failures. Example, it is very clear economic history that Roosevelt and his government interventions did not bring us out of the Depression, they lengthened and deepened it. Johnson’s Great Society, one of the most recent experiments in socialism by Democrats, another failure. Welfare, Social Security, all socialism, all failures.
I want the government out of my life, out of my wallet, and out of my business. This government literally has not met a tax it doesn’t love. Example, the Democrats are now rolling back the end of the Death Tax saying it will cost the government too much. Hey, you Congressman and Senators, news flash, it’s not your money and you don’t have a right too it. My family has the right to keep every red cent that my wife and I accumulate through the risks we take and the hard work we have done all our lives to make that money. The “government” has no right tell me who I have to help and support. The only people I am obligated to support are my family.
So, if you all love the system in Norway, Sweden, Spain, Venezuala, or any other “socialist” paradise, please move there as soon as possible.
I don’t want to support you or anyone else.
Leave me, my family, and my money, and my God given rights alone.
Comment by DD on 2 April 2009:

Daryl,

Your God given rights (Or Natural rights as I prefer it) will never be recognized until we have a true liberterian country, where the individual is sovereign.
Comment by moses.madilonga on 7 April 2009:

socialism is a theoretical statement which in reality never exists.
firstly, socialism has limited gronds for individual ownership of factors of production. The colective ownership of resource is undesirable for poeple who work harder to attain such resources.
secondly on the producers’ side of view, it is found to be less efficient compared to the modern economies.this is because innovation of new and least costly technolgical is not much motivated as will be under a free market economy.
although, this kind of economy can achieve greatr levels of equity, it is undesierable to the society as a whole.
Comment by Lexi on 7 April 2009:

Dem, I just wanted to respond to an earlier comment you made. I believe in privatized roads. And privatized schools. And privatized utilities.
Monopolies only occur when there is no chance for competition to arise. Which means that your regulated, controlled corporations have the potential to become monopolies. The only true monopolies are enforced by the government.
Comment by Lexi on 7 April 2009:

Socialism may not have been invented in the 20th century, but where it began to thrive as an idea and spread like a vile weed. Let’s pray that it doesn’t become the norm in the 21st century… though that is how it is shaping up to be.
Comment by Richard on 10 April 2009:

The article is one of the best explanations I have seen of what socialism is and why it doesn\’t work. It is well thought out and well written. Many of the comments as well are thoughtful and on point. Others, mostly the ones based on emotion rather than reason, are quite jumbled. It is a wonderful discussion and I am grateful so many have participated. My contribution is this: While there are many truly bad (evil) economic outcomes from socialism, the primary difference between socialism and capitalism (freedom in the market place) is the fact that socialism is inherently evil while capitalism (free markets) is not. It is evil because it advocates enslavement. Enslavement of the productive to the unproductive. Socialism is an evil that cloaks itself in good.
Comment by jorod on 14 April 2009:

As Mr. Pipes said, Marxism is dogma masquerading as science.
Comment by B_dub on 15 April 2009:

This explains the utter collapse of the neoconservatives own special brand of socialism; corporate socialism. When big government undermines basic rights of the population by virtue of it ignoring its promise to be for and by the people, the socialistic corporative entity will collapse under its own weight and propensity to cannibalize itself. Neoconservative agenda realized was the source of our failed socialistic corporate state, and today, we, as US citizens as well as many future generations of Americans bear the burden of that failed dogma. Neoconservatives proved that corporate Socialism will fail. Maybe it’s Obama’s time to prove that the socialization of the citizenry can fail just as miserably.
Comment by Chairman Mao on 17 April 2009:

The recent turmoil in the world financial and economic circles is a result of eccessive freedom of capitalism in the West.

China might have failed in its rigid socialist dogma before 1980s but later succeeded in many ways after it started to reform and open up to the West. The strategy of SOCIALIZED CAPITALISM proved its efficiency in that China’s economy and financial system was not so severely affected by the current crisis.

Hence, my conclusion is that, no matter what kind of capitalism or socialism it is, you will succeed if you don’t go to extreme. Just combine the two and be balanced.
Comment by Karl Marx on 17 April 2009:

None of you really know what is communism.

What most of you are against are your imagined or distorted socialisms/communisms.

Socialism/communism works because it is scientific theory of the human society. If it doesn\’t work, that\’s because few people grasp the scientific theory. It will definitely work and only work until people begin to use it scientifically.

To be easily understand, for example, a doctors can cure your disease if they follow medicinal science and they can kill you if they don\’t grasp the medicinal science and use the medicine improperly.

Not enough people correctly understand the Marxism, however socialism/communism only works where most of people have to understand the Marxism. This is the reason why you have never seen a workable socialism/communism society.

The best society for those who are with good human-virtues is socialism/communism.
The worst society for those who are with bad human-virtues is also socialism/communism.

This is the key point!

To learn why this is true, please see: http://www.marxists.org
Comment by Karl Marx on 17 April 2009:

A society is a society of people. A society would become better if people become of less of bad virtues.

capitalism society is the worst society in the human history so far because all bad human-virtues are flourish in it.

As Karl Marx had said “capital comes into the world dripping from head to toe from every pore, with blood and dirt.”
Comment by Karl Marx on 17 April 2009:

Chairman Mao is a real great Marxist. The fake Chairman Mao’s comments above should be Deng Xiaoping’s.

The reason why the capitalism economic crisis affected China is exactly that China is now part of the current capitalism system. It is extremely ironic to see capitalism economic crisis happened in China while to hear from the Chinese government that China is still a socialism society.
Comment by Albert Einstein on 17 April 2009:

Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
Comment by DD on 29 April 2009:

Einstein’s essay is mostly a collection of known Marxist fallacies.

At least, towards the end, he acknowledges that Socialism (planned economy) “may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual”. Unlike most socialists, he at least figured that one out.

If he only bothered to study some sound economics, then perhaps he never would have written this intellectually shameful essay.
Comment by Albert Einstein on 30 April 2009:

Hey DD, you distorted Einstein’s meaning entirely.
Saying that “it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism” Einstein was to emphasize that a planned economy is a unique character of socialism, however, only a planned economy is not enough, i.e., a planned economy plus a political democracy (but not a political bureaucracy) look like more socialism.

Capitalism fun like you often watch Marxism with colored glasses.

Please watch Capitalism hits the fun http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/
Comment by Darren on 6 May 2009:

Einstein’s “Why Socialism?” debunked: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiwarcom/message/35765

Socialists also need to own up to “Why Are We Socialists?” http://www.skrewdriver.net/natsoc.html

Lastly, my wife’s account of life under socialism in Guyana, “Socialism in Guyana” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Socialism-in-Guyana-by-Rehana-Wolfe-080622-904.html
Comment by Merrill on 7 May 2009:

I like what Arthur C. Clarke said about socialism. It isn’t an exact quote, only as memory serves, but it makes the point.

“Socialism really is the best political theory. The trouble is it can only work for insects.”
Comment by Merrill on 7 May 2009:

Sure, it is fiction but for an perfect illustration of the human cost of socialism, watch the excellent film “The Lives of Others.” It is most effective at showing how the subtle effects of socialist policies and practices (especially the unavoidable corruptions) permeate the lives of ordinary people.
Comment by Karl Marx on 8 May 2009:

Hey Merrill,

I am sure you have never really understood what is real Marxism and socialism. My opinion is exact the opposite: Capitalism really is the currently practical political theory. The trouble is it can only work well for insects. Current crisis is a solid evidence that capitalism doesn\’t work for human-beings! We need a better one.

Karl Marx\’s communism is not only the best political theory, but also the best solution for human-beings to live with basic dignity. The worst thing of Captalism is it can gradually destroys human-beings\’ dignity and converts a human to an insect.

The fact is that many people live in a way just as that of insects in a capitalism system. Please see Franz Kafka\’s The Metamorphosis.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5200
and
http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/metamorphosis/
Comment by Karl Marx on 8 May 2009:

Hey Darren,

It is sad to see such a clever young man like you should misunderstand Socialism, Communism and Marxism so much that you cited such a Nazism article as a socialism one.

In the article, it clearly states that”We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!”

However, Scientific Socialism was created by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Karl Marx had declared that ” I am not a socialist.” But his statement was in a context that people who distorted Scientific Socialism and said his distorted one is the true Socialism just like the one you cited in a Nazism article.
Comment by Karl Marx on 8 May 2009:

Hey Darren,

That’s a good movie! But the socialism it criticized is not the one I am talking about. Simply saying, Soviet Union or East Germany and other so called socialism society are all faked ones. To understand this, please see: http://www.trotsky.net/revolution_betrayed.html
Comment by Joe on 9 May 2009:

Socialism will definitely fail. It’s failing because many in these centrally planned economies have figured out how to rip the system off. It’s not because they don’t practice pure socialism. This goes the root of humanity, we are all a bunch of greedy, self-righteous turkeys. I am going to do what is in my best interest. Rather or not if there is a capitalistic or communistic system in place!
Comment by Robert Anson Heinlein on 9 May 2009:

This is a direct quote from Science Fiction writer Robert Heinlein. This contains a huge amount of wisdom.

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”-Robert Anson Heinlein
Comment by Karl Marx on 10 May 2009:

Hey Joe,

Centrally planned economies system is a character of Stalism but not socialism.

In a socialism society, you will be able to do what is in your best interest, but your activities will be limited by all of other individuals who also be able to do what are in their best interests.

In a word, socialism indicates freedom and democracy and equality!

Do you think you are living in a society of freedom and democracy and equality now? I dare to say “NO”.

Socialism will be a inavitable result of continuiously long fighting among human-beings and the fighting will only gradually stop in a society of with more and more freedom and democracy and equality.

I would say a society with a high level of freedom and democracy and equality is a socialism.
American is capitalism society but not a socialism one mainly because of its lower level of equality.

Soviet Union is not a socialism society mainly because of its lower level of freedom and democracy.
Comment by Karl Marx on 10 May 2009:

Robert Anson Heinlein\’s so called wisdoms sound quite foolish and full of cheating!

Tell me how many people -within those small group minority are more creative than Albert Einstein or Karl Marx?
Comment by Karl Marx on 10 May 2009:

There is not abstract root of humanity.
Not all people are greedy. Albert Einstein is an example, and many
people are not greedy. All people who are not greedy are against capitalism and support socialism.

The following words stated by Albert Einstein falsified ” all people are greedy.”

“How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people — first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving…
Comment by DD on 11 May 2009:

Karl Marx,

Don’t throw terms like “freedom” around without understanding what they mean.

1. An individual is his own property (mind and body)

2. An individual has the freedom to choose his own action according to his individual self interest motive as long as he doesn’t compel, coerce or use any means of physical force against another individual

3. An individual has the right of keep the product of his labor. If he doesn’t have that right, then he is a slave.

You either agree with the above statements or you don’t. There is no middle ground.

If you do not agree with the above 3 statements, your concept of “freedom” is nonsense.

If you do agree, then you should realize that the only social system that is compatible with those 2 statements is a system based on voluntary exchange. A system of voluntary exchange is an unregulated free market. A free market is the only natural consequence of a free society.

Your perception of Capitalism/free markets is completely flawed, as was of the real Karl Marx. American Capitalism is not Capitalism; it is actually the result of a lot of what you are advocating.

If your system involves any coercion against the individual, you cannot, by definition, call it freedom. If you claim that your system does not involve any such coercion, then you are very confused about what socialism is or what any other system is, that is not pure Capitalism. It is a logical truism: A system based on individual freedom leads only to a free market. Capitalism and Individual Rights are practically synonyms.
Comment by Robert Anson Heinlein on 12 May 2009:

Karl Marx,

Your statement about all capitalists being greedy is ridiculous. I believe in capitalism (and Anarchy)simply because I don’t want to be punished for my own success.
Comment by Robert Anson Heinlein on 12 May 2009:

And what kind of question is “Tell me how many people -within those small group minority are more creative than Albert Einstein or Karl Marx?”? It makes no sense. Capitalism is the only way for the advancement of the human race, as apposed to all staying equal in ignorance.
Comment by TequilaKid on 13 May 2009:

I quote Mr Perry: \"I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the \"evil capitalist empire\" …?

My reply: Haiti is a capitalist country too! A failed capitalist country!

You know why people in the Ukraine, Moldova and other parts of the former Soviet Union suffer the worst rates of clinical depression in the world? Because they no longer have free medical treatment, as they did before, and their pensions were reduced to zero through hyperinflation. You know who instigated that hyperinflation in Russia? Choo-bice! He was the guy who sold off govt property cheap to the people who are now oligarchs. The privatizer! He expropriated the mass of the population to enrich a few.

Quite reminiscent, as a matter of fact, of chapter 24 of Das Kapital vol. I called \"Primitive Accumulation of Capital\". There Marx argues that the English Industrial Revolution of the 1900s was to a great extent financed through expropriation of landless peasants during the foregoing centuries by the parliamentary enclosure acts (a land reform that made market-oriented agriculture feasible). They had no land, but they had traditionaal rights of pasturage and whatnot that helped them get by. But they were not compensated if they owned no land. Expropriated in other words.

I suggest you free-market groupies come out of your cold-war foxholes. You\’re still fighting a war that ended long ago! Von Mises\’ critique of government intervention is largely correct. That was primitive, unschooled govt intervention, the only kind that existed at the time.

Nowadays we know thousands of times more about economics than we did fifty years ago, merely because economists have been writing papers and theses, and a lot of new things have been discovered, among them: new methods of planning that are not as constrictive and repressive as the old ones. The socialism that von Mises was critiquing is exemplified by the remark of Lenin\’s he cites: \"We\’re going to run the economy like it was the post office!\" Nobody who nowadays proposes planning is thinking of a post-office model of the economy.

I\’m generally critical of free-market thinkers, because their models are too simplistic and are not based on actual observation of economic phenomena. However there is ONE FREE-MARKET THINKER WHOM I GREATLY ADMIRE, NAMELY HERNANDO DE SOTO, because HE\’S NOT JUST PUSHING AN AGENDA, he\’s researching how markets work in Africa, how markets can be improved, made more transparent, etc. I haven’t yet had time to read his work thoroughly, though.
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

DD, Robert Anson Heinlein,

I agree with you that “American Capitalism is not Capitalism; it is actually the result of a lot of what you are advocating.”

Actually, I would like to say that America is more socialism than China now, because it contains more elements of socialism, such as freedom, democracy.

DD, I totally agree with you on your understanding of Freedom. That’s the freedom of socialism.

It sounds like we may talk the same better society which you labeled it as Capitalism and I label it as Socialism.

But a key difference between Capitalism and Communism is that all of Natural Sources, such as oceans,lands, oils, forests, mountains, and so on will be not private properties in a communism society, all of the natural sources are shared with all of the human-beings.
No people and no Government have the right to say that a specific land or ocean belongs to a small group of people or country. All the planet belongs to all the human-beings living on it. No country but a whole union of free men and women in this world, no slavery !
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

America is a typical capitalism society because common properties are occupied by a small group of capitalists. Workers are seriously exploited by those capitalists.Workers are essentially slaves of capitalists!
Comment by aware on 13 May 2009:

marx and those like him…how you love to feign intellectualism but you stand for barbarism. For brute force. When you have had the power to make the world \"fair\" you do so with the camps. Your utopias only bring misery every time it is tried, without exception.
And you bring war. A war of every man against every man. You turn family and friends into agents of the State. To spy and report. To seize and shoot. You are even at war against yourself, hence the need for endless plans that overthrow what is, even if it is your previous plan.

Your political ideology is your religion. And you are very devoted to it. A true child of the State. You have always promised justice and universal peace but deliver destruction. Even to those you claim to be emancipating! You are full of rage and hate. You crave power and control to remake man in your image.

You constantly point to injustice but will replace individual injustice with universal injustice. What you propose is no longer a theory to be argued as an idea. It has been done. In many places at different times. It always ends the same…mass murder. And those that escape that fate and your camps live in misery and want. And when this is pointed out you claim that the good socialism was hijacked by the evil Stalins, who then ruined things. You don\’t understand that your system not only makes the Stalins possible but inevitable.

Capitalism is unfair in ways but it gave us automobiles, air planes, telephones,computers, and a real improvement in the condition of life for more people than any other system. And who can guess what it has in the wings. These things are reserved for the very top in your system, which has given us the gulag, the guillotine, and the gas chambers. Enlighten me as to the positive contributions to humanity by your collectivism because they escape me.
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

aware,

I appreciate your words, “Capitalism is unfair in ways but it gave us automobiles, air planes, telephones,computers, and a real improvement in the condition of life for more people than any other system.”

But a better society will have all of the “automobiles, air planes, telephones,computers, and a real improvement in the condition of life for more people” and it will be fair to everyone.

This better society is called Socialism Society.

Human-beings will try their best to get into that Socialism Society for sure through class struggles.

Karl Marx did nothing but reveal a fact and the trend of human history:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

Aware,

I don’t agree with you on “You don\’t understand that your system not only makes the Stalins possible but inevitable. ”

Lenin and Trotsky did great job in the early part of Soviet revolution. Stalinism has been thrown away by proletarians. Both Stalinism and Capitalism are enemies of proletarians. There may be other hidden enemies, but proletarian will not yield or give up but continue to struggle for their freedom and for the freedom of all human-beings!
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

Hey DD,

Your last words “Capitalism and Individual Rights are practically synonyms.” are entirely wrong.

Tell me how Capitalism protects but not damages Individual Rights of working class? Why working class have been struggling against Capitalists for their Individual Rights?
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

Hey Robert Anson Heinlein,

“Your statement about all capitalists being greedy is ridiculous.”

I never say or mean that all capitalists are greedy. One founder of Marxism, Friedrich Engels himself was a capitalist. But he obviously against Capitalism.

“I believe in capitalism (and Anarchy)simply because I don’t want to be punished for my own success.”

In a socialism your own success will be protected but not be punished. But if your own success was based on exploitation of other people, you will definitely be punished by a socialism society. Is that clear?
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

Aware,

“how you love to feign intellectualism but you stand for barbarism.”

You have never understood what is Marxism. What you said are all about Nazism or Stalinism.

Nazism and Stalinism are against Marxism.

You should learn something about Trotsky and Stalin.
Comment by DD on 13 May 2009:

Karl Marx: \"Natural Sources, such as oceans,lands, oils, forests, mountains, and so on will be not private properties in a communism society, all of the natural sources are shared with all of the human-beings.\"

Well then, there goes your freedom out the door. Without property rights, no individual rights can be practically implemented. Every consumer good that comes into existence relies on natural resources. If I cannot own those goods that I produce or buy from someone else because you have decided that all natural resources belong to \"society\", then we are back to square one, and I do not work for myself, nor can I do anything without being granted permission from others. I am a slave! But anyhow, this ideology is absurd since it cannot even be practically implemented even if we all believed in it. Belong to society means belong to nobody. The rulers in charge have temporary ownership (since they control the resources) but since they do not actually own the resources, they have every interest to deplete that resource for their short term political gain. A private owner would have an interest in preserving the Capital value of that resource, and thus, would not deplete it recklessly. You should really start to learn a little more about free market economics and what profits (and losses) really mean before you are ready to sacrifice yourself for this Marxism.

Karl Marx: \"Tell me how Capitalism protects but not damages Individual Rights of working class? Why working class have been struggling against Capitalists for their Individual Rights?\"

You are locked in on these fallacies of \"working class\" vs \"Capitaists\", etc.. Any \"worker\" who has any savings in the form of a bank account, stocks, bonds, etc.. is a Capitalist.
A Capitalist is simply one, who instead of consuming all of his income (like a pig, and ironically how the socialists want us to do right now), saves some of his income and channels it for investment, in the hope to reap a future profit. Without savings of the “Capitalist”, there is no Capital and there is no economy. In fact, the Capitalist sacrifices immediate consumption and risks his savings so that your “workers” can consume in the present, for the hope of producing some product, which will generate the Capitalist, a profit. Without the willingness to save and risk that savings, your “Workers” are dead! This would ironically occur, if those who care about the “workers” had it their way.

I don\’t want to argue semantics, but Capitalism, as in an unregulated free market, is based on all men being free. Free to buy and free to sell. No one individual can coerce another into an involuntary exchange. All exchange is voluntary for mutual benefit. Your \"worker\" cannot be coerced into any job and any wage. Freedom cannot mean you have a right to some wage or some benefit, but only a right to earn that wage or that benefit if one chooses to hire you. If one actually has an automatic right to a service or benefit, then it means that some other individual must be coerced into producing it. You cannot have the right to enslave another individual. One of your major problems is that you are locked on many erroneous economic fallacies, which prevent you from seeing all of this.
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

Socialism economy is essentially different with that of capitalism.
When you say” One of your major problems is that you are locked on many erroneous economic fallacies, which prevent you from seeing all of this.”

I am sure that you have no idea about how socialism economy system works and how it matches with a much higher level of freedom, democracy and equality of everyone comparing to a capitalism system. To understand this, you need to learn some Marxism.

Every Marxist know very well the pros and cons about capitalism economy system, that’s why they develop a better one, namely socialism one.
Comment by Cyndi Morgan on 13 May 2009:

You can push all you want and your socialism will fail. It will fail
because it is financilly impossible to keep a socialized populus well
educated, well employed and given every imaginable free service that
goes unchecked without considering an economy that will back it. When
there goes about the natural ebb and flow of supply and demand, no
matter how much the government tries to control, the future cannot
be predicted. Therefore, unless the government now also has the
ability to predict the future, it will always be caught at the worst
moment unable to sustain it’s own promises. Anarchy fills in ad
so do the free markets–the natural way always comes about through
sheer uncontrollable laws of entropy. Now try to control that.
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

Hey DD,

DD: “I don\’t want to argue semantics, but Capitalism, as in an unregulated free market, is based on all men being free. Free to buy and free to sell. No one individual can coerce another into an involuntary exchange.”

Modern capitalism society,such as current US and UK, were born from free market and history has shown that free market didn’t work well, that’s why Keynesian came out.

Capitalism economic system, whether it is Free Market, or Keynesian, has its intrinsic defect which is the root of economic crisis. Current so called financial crisis is not an exception.

Karl Marx had proved theoretically in the 19th century, and history has proved it many times.
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

Cyndi Morgan，

Only self-organized free men- but not Government whether it is a Capitalism one or a Socialism one ( Actually, in a communism society, there will be no any government at all -can efficiently organize their economic system without suffering from economic crisis.

The self-organized free men only exist in a communism society.
Comment by Karl Marx on 13 May 2009:

Hey DD,

“Any \”worker\” who has any savings in the form of a bank account, stocks, bonds, etc.. is a Capitalist.”

It is your own definition, not the one Karl Marx’s definition.

When I talk Workers and Capitalist. I am using Marx’s definition.

However it is true, a person can became a capitalist from a worker or vice versa, even the same person can be a worker and at the same time be a capitalist.

This complication doesn’t not change overall class structure (Basically a worker class and capitalist class) in a capitalism society.
Comment by aware on 14 May 2009:

\"But a better society will have all of the “automobiles, air planes, telephones,computers, and a real improvement in the condition of life for more people” and it will be fair to everyone.\"…These inventions are the result of individuals acting on their own and in their own self-interest. This they do for their own reasons, even greed.

The planners that are so central in your system are not inventors and have no understanding of that process. You cannot simply decide to invent, it is spontaneous and always at the individual level. The individual is precisely what collectivism seeks to eliminate. The more successful it is at this the less inventors you have. So how do you think these things will come into being? By fiat?

You are still speaking slogans(collectivists have always been the best slogan writers) and arguing in theoretic terms while ignoring the practical results. Your \"more prefect\" system will always have to be populated by imperfect men cause that is all there is. This is why you must attempt to remake man through the State with its schools and control of information. This destroys the individual and precludes initiative necessary for invention.

Talent is a gift as anyone possessing it knows. Since you do not acknowledge God(assumption on my part), let\’s for the sake of the argument say it is \"random\". If there is no system of personal freedom there is no \"approved\" avenue for the exercise of that talent. This is why collectivism produces no great art, nor music, nor literature. In short, invention. Your system buries the individual under the apparatus of the State.

You can quibble with the difference between National Socialism, Stalinism, communism, fascism, and \"true\" socialism all you want but the differences are in implementation not in theory. These all require the supreme State as the unquestioned and ultimate authority. The State, all States, was created to make crime pay and pay big. It seeks,and eventually gets, monopoly of violence. It and it alone decides where and on whom it will unleash this violence for the purpose of State aggrandizement. Or as your theory cynically puts it \"for the greater good of the many\".

You have not responded to any of my points. The practical results of your rhetoric are buried in mass graves all around the world where ever it has been tried. It is carried in the scarred memories of the survivors with their broken lives and shattered dreams. It shows in destroyed economies and mass starvation. And in the endless scapegoating of ever growing segments of people on the enemies lists. The more the State fails the more bodies it requires. In all of human history nothing comes close to the record of your theory in producing both failure and bodies. Half a billion human beings have perished in the last one hundred years in the attempt to make your theory a reality. All States are on the road to totalitarianism. Some move faster than others but they always end up there. Marxism will always be the fast track to this end.
Comment by Karl Marx on 14 May 2009:

Aware,

Aware: \"These inventions are the result of individuals acting on their own and in their own self-interest. This they do for their own reasons, even greed.\"

This is not true. Most great scientists, such as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, J. D. Bernal and son on, work for all the human-beings but not for their-selves. It was those scientists who made most contribution to various inventions, but not those small group of greedy ones; on the contrary, those small group of greedy people may make some contribution, but their consumption of other people\’s work usually much more than what they contributed to the society. So most of those small group of people are basically nothing but parasites of the society.

You should read Einstein\’s words to feel shame for what you have said.

\"A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life depend on the labours of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving. I am strongly drawn to the simple life and am often oppressed by the feeling that I am engrossing an unnecessary amount of the labour of my fellow-men. Albert Einstein (The World As I See It) \"
Comment by Karl Marx on 14 May 2009:

Aware,

“You have not responded to any of my points.”
Every big step in the history of human society was accompanied by a violent revolution. You should know that even in America civil war, hundreds and thousands people were dead. It was a tragedy but it was good for the whole United States.

Same logic used in your Free Market theory may make you clear. For your free market to work, some company will go to bankruptcy, however bankruptcy is not good for some people related to the company, but it is good for some others and the health of the whole free market.

The reason why violent revolution couldn’t avoid is that oppressors were not willing to discard their arms but use them to oppress those oppressed. Revolution are always not good for oppressors but always good and necessary for those oppressed and a better society.

The fact revealed by Karl Marx is that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Is that clear?
Comment by Karl Marx on 14 May 2009:

Aware,

“If there is no system of personal freedom there is no \”approved\” avenue for the exercise of that talent. This is why collectivism produces no great art, nor music, nor literature. In short, invention. Your system buries the individual under the apparatus of the State.”

First, in a communism society, people will enjoy his/her personal freedom to his/her greatest extend. I bet, Einstein and J.D. Bernal would still be great scientist in a communism society, since they are for that society.

Second, even not in an ideal socialism society such as The Soviet Union and China. Scientists and Artists who love socialism had make numerous great discovery and created numerous immortal works of art.
How can you say that socialism system buries the individual?! You behavior looks like an ostrich dips its head into the sand and pretends seeing nothing.
Comment by Karl Marx on 14 May 2009:

Aware,

“Since you do not acknowledge God.”

Again, you are wrong. I do acknowledge God. I am also a christian.

I would like to pray for you to learn some Marxism. Marxism shares a lot with christianity.

I guess you may have some difficulty to understand how a christian can be a Marxist.
Comment by Karl Marx on 14 May 2009:

FYI: Christianity and Communism

“At the time when Marxism first emerged on the political scene, the concept of secular or atheistic communism did not yet exist. All communism was rooted in religious principles. During the mid-to-late 1840s, the largest organization espousing communist ideas in Europe was the League of the Just, whose motto was “All Men are Brothers” and whose aim was to establish a new society “based on the ideals of love of one’s neighbor, equality and justice”. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels joined the League of the Just in 1847. Under their influence, the organization became secular and atheistic and changed its name to the Communist League. The League invited Marx and Engels to write a programmatic document that would express communist principles, and they obliged, producing the Communist Manifesto.” —http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism#Early_Christian_Communism
Comment by aware on 15 May 2009:

\"Every big step in the history of human society was accompanied by a violent revolution.\"…But what about AFTER your revolution? Most of the death was dealt out was after a Marxist take over. The War Between the States ended at Appomattox and the killing stopped. There was no continued rounding up of the \"guilty\". No camps to house and liquidate. No, as I said you bring perpetual war that never ends. This is because Marxism is a conflict world view that separates humanity into artificial groups and then sets them at each other, rich against poor, capital against labor,and any other place the wedge can be driven. Capitalism is better than Marxism for the same reason that a bed is better than the cold ground, a house is better than a cave, and food is better than political theories. It is better because it actually makes people materially better off. Not theoretically, but measurably, historically provable.

\’First, in a communism society, people will enjoy his/her personal freedom to his/her greatest extend.\’… the record says differently and you are completely ignoring this fact. The dead ARE dead. If the victims (there is no better word) enjoy greater freedom under Marxism why do they risk death to escape? How many have been shot trying to do just that? If it is like you say wouldn\’t people risk death to get into these utopias and not out? When ballots become meaningless people vote with their feet, and this is true of all political systems.

\’Again, you are wrong. I do acknowledge God. I am also a christian.\’…You have my profoundest apologies and I greet you as the brother that we are. But you will find that the State is a jealous god, too. The first State under Nimrod (Genesis) ended up with the Tower of Babel, as competitor to and in defiance of the Most High. This underlying theme is present in all States. This is what makes them anti-social institutions, though we insist on thinking the opposite. There is hardly a crisis in the modern world that State fingerprints aren\’t all over the blunt instrument. From the micro to the macro. The State was born in violence and is perpetuated with violence, or at least the threat of it. The threat works because the action it implies has been proven too many times to doubt. The State is the means of exploitation, whether used by the greedy capitalists against the workers, as Marx espouses, or by the dictators against their own populations, as I claim.

The State is the engine of destruction and it is irrelevant who is at the controls. Changing drivers only changes the victims of this destruction, not the inherent nature of the vehicle. It will do what it is designed to do no matter who controls it. This is the heart of the flaw in Marxism, it seeks to use the power of the State to end the injustices caused or exasperated by the State. It makes the State more powerful than ever to accomplish this and then finds itself victimized. Hence the mass murder, destroyed fortunes, razed homes,and broken people.

\’I would like to pray for you to learn some Marxism. Marxism shares a lot with christianity.\’…\’All communism was rooted in religious principles.\’…Except replacing persuasion with compulsion. You are ignoring the fact that to even be having this very discussion under a Marxist system would be dangerous in the extreme to, not just me, but both of us. That you have been exposed to my point of view means the risk of contamination, something the authorities will not permit. This too is not theoretic, but provable by the actual record.

Religion is a Satanic imitation of the truth of God. It is impersonal and ritualized, overladen with generations of traditions. That is why there are so many of them, proving that it seeks to accommodate itself to men so as to be accepted. But God\’s truth makes men accommodate themselves to it. The truth does not change, but men must in order to accept it. Marxism is a political version of religion because it relies on man\’s power instead of God to right all manner of wrongs, real or imagined. But it has no checks on the corruption that is inherent in man\’s nature. Man is a natural born corrupter and blame shifter (remember Adam when confronted by God in the garden). We are all better off when we do not have the power of life and death over our fellow man, but Marxism gives this to us to a greater degree than anything that has come before. Democracy gives us the tyranny of the many which leads us to collectivism, which is the dictatorship of the many. This then leads to totalitarianism which is the dictatorship of the one. All States follow this pattern and Marxism is one of the necessary steps into the abyss, not an end but a means to an end.

You making the same mistake that many idealistic people have made, namely, that this time we will do this right. That\’s what they thought too, but it ended the same way, with murder and oppression. Man is still the corruption in the Garden and only God can change that, not better political systems.

One other thing…\’I am also a christian.\’… the Lord did not come to make men \’christians\’ but to make disciples. He did not come, as all the imitators have, to start a religion but to reconcile us with God. To give us the truth of God. This He does with the sword of His mouth, which divides truth from falsehood. Not with a sword in His hand. Peace, brother.
Comment by Karl Marx on 15 May 2009:

Aware,

I agree with you that \"The State is the engine of destruction and it is irrelevant who is at the controls.\" That\’s exactly what
Lenin said in his famous book: \’The State and Revolution\’

I bet you have never read that book, so it is not surprised to me to hear you saying that.

See, all of your misunderstanding of communism comes from your closed eyes or eyes wearing colored glasses to it.

The ultimate goal of communism is to build a Heaven on the earth where every brother and sister are free from any state control, in another words, to eliminate any kind of state, to liberate human-beings.

But this Heaven has to be built by human-being ourselves through the will of GOD. The only way is through communism revolution. Communism revolution is the will of GOD.

GOD materializes his power through human-beings, without this procedure GOD has no any power to affect human-society.
Comment by Karl Marx on 15 May 2009:

FYI, Aware,

“Lenin talks extensively about the State and its inherent nature. He says the state, at all times, is a tool for class oppression, which is where he agrees with the anarchists. The State was a creation out of the desires of groups of people to control each other, when their disputes and desires could not be halted in any other way. The State, whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy, will always remain a tool for the ruling class. Using dialectics, he says that even in a democratic capitalist republic the ruling class will never lose power, as it will maintain a complete stranglehold on the state, using “behind-the-scenes” actions instead of open actions in these stages. Universal suffrage, he says, is the best form of cloak for the ruling class, as it maintains an idealistic shade of freedom and democracy when, in truth, such attributes do not exist.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_and_Revolution
Comment by aware on 15 May 2009:

Of course I\’ve read The State and Revolution, how do you think I can point out the fatal flaw in Marxism, namely that while the intellectual founders can rail against the State all they want, their system begets a State like no other in power and scope, a super State. Furthermore, this tenancy in Leftism can be traced through Marx and Engels to even older beginnings. Of course they believe that once the goal of total socialism(equality) is achieved this monster State will just cease to be. That will never happen because the apparatchiks of the State enjoy privileges not had by the masses and they will never give them up. Instead, the State only grows bigger and more powerful.

The State is the only real threat to freedom. Not freedom in a metaphysical way but individual freedom, which means personal liberty. These two things are incompatible, the more of one means the less of the other. If your personal choices are dictated in any way by anyone then you are not free. If your choices are limited by the State then you are oppressed to one degree or another.

You say…The ultimate goal of communism is to build a Heaven on the earth…but the proverb says…there is a way that seems right to man but it leads to death… since you have avoided the main problem I have with all collectivist systems and States, I will put it to you plain….if these goals are so noble then how did all the murders happen? Why the terror? The deportations? The camps? And why is this true, not just in one isolated case, but without exception?

You do understand that we are talking about real people who were killed for no other reason than they happened to be of the wrong class, or race, or profession, or ideology. They are dead because of their collective guilt, not because of anything they did as individuals.

Marxism is the perfect example of a clear but false idea that adds the irresistible notion of something for nothing, which always appeals to the lowest segment of the human race. But its fatal flaw is that it is seduced by the State and in the end the State comes out on top as it always does with those who think it can be used for their ends.

Lenin does not go to the logical conclusion about the State because he, like others, does not understand that it is the State that is behind most of the problems we have. War, poverty, aggression, and many other seemingly intractable problems. You should spend time with Rothbard or Nock to gain understanding in the nature of the State. They are shrewd observers without the political baggage and they understand the concept of personal liberty, which is alien to Lenin and all collectivist.
Comment by aware on 15 May 2009:

You say…GOD materializes his power through human-beings, without this procedure GOD has no any power to affect human-society.

WTF? The God I serve is all-mighty, omnipotent. He can do anything to anybody at anytime. If he depended on us we’d all be lost with no hope at all. I don’t doubt that you are well versed in Marxist/Leninist theory and literature, but I’m starting to wonder if you have spent time with the Word of God and in a personal relationship with Him. No offense. Also Heaven has the advantage of having perfect inhabitants, the one thing your heaven on earth will never have.
Comment by Karl Marx on 15 May 2009:

Bakunin, Rothbard and Nock are all giants among anarchists. I appreciate their thoughts and I also believe that if all of us were anarchists, the society will be a communism society ( no government, a free society) too. But in current social condition, I agree with Lenin, and his critique on anarchists.

\"Lenin claims then that the only \"remedy\" for these ills is socialist revolution, and that is where he breaks with the anarchists. He disagrees on two points with the Anarchists:

1.) Anarchists say the immediate abolishment of the state is an ideal. Lenin claims that such a thing is impossible, as the proletariat will immediately set up its own state, and any attempt to intervene would prove fatal.

2.) If the state were abolished immediately without the \"conditions leading to the arising of the state\" being so, Lenin claims that a new state would simply pop up and the revolution would have been useless.

Lenin says the proletariat will naturally make its own communal state (modeled after the Paris Commune of 1871), and then proceed slowly to suppress the bourgeois dissenters. Lenin then says, as Marx did in his younger years, that the state will \"wither away\", as the institutions begin to \"lose their political character\" until they are gone. Lenin felt that this change would be gradual and slow so that no power-hungry person(s) could take over, and also so that the population would not allow such a thing.

I can\’t agree with you on \"Lenin does not go to the logical conclusion about the State\". On the contrary, Lenin gave a thoroughly dialectic analysis of the nature of State and gave a practical solution to eliminate it.
Comment by aware on 15 May 2009:

K M…my personal position is not in the anarchist’s camp. But you are not answering the central question about the violence and mass murder. I maintain that it is inherent in Marxism. It is contained in the theory for the simple reason that the Marxists try to force reality to conform to the theory. The human factor makes a true socialist’s utopia impossible and it always will.

Are all these killing fields just aberrations? Were all the revolutions hijacked by rogue dictators who then perverted the true doctrine?

What could possibly be worth all that misery?
Comment by Karl Marx on 15 May 2009:

Aware,

My GOD is a spiritual concept. As the one talked by Spinoza. The essence of God is nothing but the abstraction of NATURE itself.

This is no personalized GOD who are “all-mighty, omnipotent. He can do anything to anybody at anytime. ”

All-mighty is nonsense. It is an illogical imagination.

I had heard a famous question about it:If GOD can make a stone so large that he is not be able to raise it up?
Do you have answer to it?

Don’t say that my GOD is different with yours, there is only one GOD. The fact is that some one has a correct understanding of GOD, but some one doesn’t but make an illusion to substitute GOD.
Comment by aware on 15 May 2009:

Karl,… this is a classic marxist tactic, you are avoiding the question. How is the mass murder not inherent in the theory?
Comment by Karl Marx on 15 May 2009:

Proletariat wish a peaceful transformation from Capitalism society to Communism society but they found it was impossible, that’s why they conducted violent revolution.

What could possibly be worth is a brand new and liberal world for human-being for all that misery?

In order to created that new world numerous revolutionist were willing to sacrifice their lives. They were all real great men.
Noble people who faces up to their ashes will be left in tears.
Comment by Karl Marx on 15 May 2009:

Aware,

“How is the mass murder not inherent in the theory?”

Just like the logic Chinese government used in solving the problem of Taiwan that they try to solve it peacefully, but would never give up weapons in case if necessary. Is that clear?
Comment by aware on 16 May 2009:

you say….My GOD is a spiritual concept. As the one talked by Spinoza. The essence of God is nothing but the abstraction of NATURE itself….but God says..the work of the Spirit is nothing but foolishness to the flesh. In an earlier post you claimed to be a christian but that is plainly not true. The true and only God only requires that we do what is right and to walk humbly with Him. This IS a personal relationship. but his is a political discussion so I won’t go into that.
Collectivism is nothing but repression. It crushes the individual and makes him a cog in the machine. It distorts and perverts justice to the point of unrecognizably. It is naked force that pretends to be for the greater good. It replaces relationship with friends and family with service to the State. It substitutes ideology for humanity. It doles out punishment and reward on the basis of membership in alleged groups. And it brings death and destruction on scale never dreamed of.

You are indeed a Marxist. You avoid the reality of mass murder by claiming it is because the \\\\\\\’oppressors\\\\\\\’ won\\\\\\\’t give up peacefully but it is after you take over that the kulaks are exterminated. Even those who wore glasses were targeted for death. You apply Lenin\\\\\\\’s pill( one once of lead to the back of the neck) to everything that strikes your fancy. Your good intentions are meaningless, even Hitler acted for what he thought was the \\\\\\\’good\\\\\\\’ of the German people.

The 20th century was a bloodbath of ideological wars all to make a \\\\\\\’heaven on earth\\\\\\\’. If this was 1909 you could make the argument as you are but real things have happened to real people since then and a pattern has emerged. There can be no doubt that Marxism is murderous and inhuman. It is a cruel farce that promises heaven but delivers only hell. It overthrows oppression and replaces it with terror.

And as I have said it creates a super State with all its attendant horrors. You are wrong and you have not proved otherwise. Yes you and your ideological gods. To adhere to this failed ideology now is to be nothing but an apologist for mass murder and perpetrators of the murders. In short, you represent the forces of barbarism and darkness trying, and failing, to present yourself as the bringer of progress and enlightenment.
Comment by Karl Marx on 17 May 2009:

Aware,

\"You are indeed a Marxist.\"

You are absolutely wrong. I am not a Marxist whether according to your understanding of Marxism or according to the classical Marxism.

I am just a defender for Marxism. I am a lawyer to help Marxists who have been continuously attacked by various oppressors and those
kind-hearted people but unfortunately do not know the truth for various reasons.
I am a scientist, a natural scientist who see truth as the highest value.

Why I love Marxism? It is simply because Marxism is science and I am a scientist.

Science is a double-edged sword, if was used properly, it can bring bright to human-beings, this is easy to understand as our daily life depends lots of benefits from sciences. However, if it was not used properly, it can also bring darkness to human-beings,for example, in 1950s, American army bombed Japan with two nuclear bombs and caused numerous people dead. Similarly, people such as Stalinists who didn\’t use Marxism properly also brought a lot troubles to human-society.
Comment by aware on 18 May 2009:

you say….I am not a Marxist…typical sidetracking. Engels specifically called for genocide for the Slavs. Lenin practiced genocide on the Cossacks in 1919, as an act of personal revenge for the hanging of his brother. The camps were set up under him and later used with great effect by Stalin. Marxism is founded in rage and hate so it condones any tactic that achieves power, including obdurateness and obfuscation. If you are not a Marxist then you must be what Lenin referred to as a useful idiot.

Terror is as common as air in Marxist\’s systems and even the Leader cannot escape its effect, witness Stalin cowering in a Kremlin basement after the German invasion of 1941 expecting an NKVD death squad to come for him any minute. Or Robespierre, after condemning so many to the guillotine, finally taking his place under the blade. This is why the absolute dictator is inevitable, if the control is complete, only he has a chance to escape with his skin.

As an economic system it is utter nonsense and makes the nations it controls a basket case that is unable to even supply the most basic human needs. This is simply because you cannot elevate the lower classes so you must destroy all others and lower them to this level, that you can do with the State. The State cannot and never has created wealth, it can only confiscate other\’s wealth. But Marx thinks the products of capitalism will just appear without the capitalist system. This is fantasy. And when it doesn\’t happen his adherents respond with murderous repression in a futile attempt to make it happen. This spirals into genocide every time. This is because Marxists deny reality and human nature. The practical result is that those who can flee these utopias even at the risk to life and limb, do so. And those that do are the very ones so needed to build an economic and political system that is viable, the inventor, entrepreneur, in short the individual minded. Like Einstein, who in spite of his musings on socialism, lived under capitalism by choice because it is the only system where his work belonged to him and not the State.

Men say lots of things but it is what they do that proves their true motivations. High prose and rhetoric mean nothing when you are running men into muddy ditches to be machine gunned. This is the practical result of Marx and his ideology, blood and gore at the bottom of a filthy ditch. But even then the rage is not satisfied, all records of the victims is then expunged to try to make them non-entities, even to the point of airbrushing photographs!

All this I say not to convince you but for the benefit of others reading this who may not be sure of the facts. We have both presented our views and now they can make up their own minds as to the intellectual honesty of our respective positions.
Comment by Robin West on 20 May 2009:

Socialism failed because of greed. Greed is not good and socialism actually feeds greed. Sometimes I can’t believe that people think that it is a system based on generosity. It is not.
Comment by Ryan on 2 June 2009:

The Biggest problem with capitalism is that Socialists have worked hard to screw the system up, now they turn around and say that capitalism failed. So the foolish masses will give away their freedom for the promised security and protection from the hurt of failure, but instead are saddled with a system of tyranny, only to receive misery and oppression. Socialist’s always believe that they can run everyone else’s lives better if we let them, but in reality they only want to make their own lives better…

True freedom can only exist with a government of limited power, freedom of the economy, and sound money.
Comment by Ctulhu on 5 June 2009:

I don’t think socialism (or statism) has failed. Actually, Obama is a socialist. World governments are, mostly, interventionist ones. Thus, the following crisis is caused mostlly by state interventionism, which may happen in the variety of ways. Since the gold standard abolition, the state money-printing is as easy as rolling a toilet paper.
Comment by John on 5 June 2009:

However, it is the FEDERAL RESERVE that is able to print the US dollar. The states have no power over this in any actuality. the only real power states hold is overr the citizens of their domain. they are not able to print money, and the only miajor interventionalism that states currently do is that of public schooling. you are confusing the federal government with the state government.
Comment by John on 5 June 2009:

I apologize for any spelling mistakes.
Comment by Michael Martin on 5 June 2009:

\"Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.\"

IMHO, this might be behind every parent\’s ethos of \"go to college, do well in school, and get a good job.\"

If there\’s an inkling of truth here, they would have to reword it under a Socialist system: \"go to school (or not, b/c it doesn\’t matter), do well (or not b/c you can\’t get ahead), and don\’t worry about working b/c your daddy government will pay for your sorry backside.

Nixon tried price controls in plywood, among other acts of economic war, and shut down supply in doing so.

Supply become so tight that the commodity futures market for plywood became the supplier of last resort b/c producers lost all economic incentive to produce. The demand became so high, \"users\" of plywood bought futures and stood for delivery. The futures price traded above the ceiling, telling Nixon not to fool with Mother Nature.
Comment by Ctulhu on 6 June 2009:

–you are confusing the federal government with the state government.
I apologize. I’m European, and saying “state” I mean “government of the whole country”.
Comment by Justin on 7 June 2009:

The problem with this article begins with the title. Socialism has never failed, nor has it truly ever been invoked. The closest real example of socialism, which still has a major capitalist component, is Norway — a tremendous success. With the highest quality of life across all major domains, the government has built nearly a half trillion dollar royalty from oil production — more than 10x the royalties collected in Alberta (Canada), despite having a much smaller oil reserves.

The incentive component of your article is complete nonsense. An elementary school student could figure out ways to adapt socialism to include incentives for people who run public companies. You don’t need to make billions for your self to have incentive, in fact… looking at the general populace, most people would consider a half a million salary as plenty of incentive. The difference is that the populace owns the corporations, which eliminates this absurd concentration of wealth.
Comment by Thelibertarian1776 on 8 June 2009:

\"Socialism has never failed, nor has it truly ever been invoked.\"

The problem with your premise is that its validity is dependent on confining the definition of socialism to the writings of any given socialist thinker. While (arguably) we\’ve never seen a \"pure\" example of Marx\’s communism, nor witnessed the Utopias of Robert Owen and Saint-Simon, it would be the height of historical blindness to say that economies haven\’t existed which involved many of their essential tenets.

If Socialism is the absence of a market component (as your comment implies) then the Soviet Union under Stalin stands as an excellent historical refutation of your claim. The control figures of Gosplan, not markets, set the state procurement prices and quotas of literally every facet of the Soviet economy. From the \"Commanding Heights\" of heavy industry to the collective farms of agriculture, Stalin left no market unturned. The Soviet example has the added virtue of having collapsed utterly; dealing the death blow to the remainder of your argument. I could explain the collapse at length, but in the interest of saving time I\’ll simply refer your to any eighth grade history textbook.

I would now like to touch briefly on your selection of Norway as the best example of modern socialism. The booming fjord is the world\’s third largest exporter of gas and the fourth largest exporter of oil. Combine this with tax rates similar to \"capitalist\" economies, and the fact that their government\’s expenditures as a percentage of GDP is barely 39%, and you\’ll see that Norway can no more be seen as a success of socialism than America can be seen as a failure of capitalism.

Your claim concerning the Norwegian standard of living is a bit suspect as well. Internationalliving.com provides a yearly index on the matter, and the most recent numbers (year 2009) put Norway at 11th-eight places lower than the U.S.

In closing, I have a question for you, Justin. If \"an elementary school student could figure out ways to adapt socialism to include incentives\" why have no major economists ever figured it out? I suppose the answer is lost in adulthood?
Comment by Thelibertarian1776 on 8 June 2009:

And why the hell were those dashes added to my previous comment?
Comment by Ctulhu on 9 June 2009:

We may also see the phenomenon of \"raw socialism\" in the modern world. The great stream of oil-based or gas-based money floods the inefficient running of enterprises in countries like Iran, Russia or Venezuela. It also creates the illusion of successful government rule and advocates its interventions into economу.
Comment by Bruce Eggum on 13 June 2009:

The Old plan obviously does not work. Let us develop a new plan.
It seems the “ism’s” and “cracy’s” are defined by whatever the author’s biases are. It is time to look at them and their “products”. Virtually all representative governments are oligarchy’s, the few [elite] telling the majority what to do. Communism is also a representative government, [oligarchy] running the country. The few make the decisions and reap many “rewards” for themselves, family’s and friends. To stop this, we must take that power from the “few”.
Democracy is defined as the people in charge of their own government. We have never had that. In the beginning [I was not there either] I suspect men, because of brute strength commanded. Women were subservient. The “top man” was King and had “assistance” by “His Men”. Now we have President and Cabinet, Prime Minister and Party. Millions of years and we are still ruled by the “King and his Men”.
People must make the decisions for their own communities. We can establish the needs of the community and make plans to fulfill them. Than we can appoint, hire, elect the people to administrate our plan. The administrators would develop costs and completion dates, submit their plan back to we the people for Referendum and if approved it could be implemented.
Communities are the town, village, city, of our residence. Then there are the larger communities we reside in; County, State, Nation, World. We people must have an Assembly in each of these jurisdictions and hold Referendums to approve decisions. This process was called a General Assembly by our Tribal ancestors. They met in community and continued discussion until all objections were resolved. They then implemented the agreed upon plan.
We can utilize universities, think tanks, and experts in fields of economics, health, education, welfare, climate, energy, all areas to determine the best decisions for us. [all of us including our neighbors in the whole world]
We are “Assembling” on this internet and developing good ideas. We must establish our goals and focus on the necessities.
Yes we can. Bruce Eggum, WI, USA, World
Comment by aware on 18 June 2009:

Bruce, old buddy, you do not advocate anything new at all. You are pushing the same old central planning that continuing experience proves a cruel farce. Can you imagine the state apparatus needed to implement your plan? I love how you sneer at the elites while pushing elitism(only with the right elite,i.e.universities, think tanks, and experts).

Has it occurred to you that your new elite might figure out how to corrupt the facts for political and personal advantage? And the threat of force is apparent at every step of your plan. What about the individual in your new world order? In the top down model that you advocate there is no allowance for action at the level of the individual and coercion will be used to make all march in lockstep once the enlightened administrators decide what is to be done.

Your idealized view of history is not borne out by the facts. In the tribe the chief held the power of life and death and made all discussion on decisions not only moot but dangerous. This can be dismissed as leftist propaganda and noble savage fantasy.

The blind alley logic of talking about towns and villages and then making the leap to the world is breathtaking. With these bigger entities at the nation and world levels what decisions do you think will be left to the villages? None that matter.

With your yes we can closing, I assume you are one of the kool aid drinking progressives currently pushing hope and change on the mind-numbed sheeple that over populate our world. Soon your big ideas will bankrupt us and then we will have change we will have to believe in. But one can\’t help but admire the way you are able to take old, worn out, and failed ideologies and repackage them in new gift wrapping to peddle to the gullible and uninformed.
Comment by Thelibertarian1776 on 19 June 2009:

Very well said, Aware. Though, isn\’t it just a bit depressing that those of us with an intelligence quotient above nine are forced to constantly refute arguments which history disposed of centuries ago? Keep up the good work, sir.
Comment by aware on 21 June 2009:

Yes, Thelibertarian1776, it is like teaching the same 1st grade lessons over and over. Even more absurdly, usually to the SAME people!
Years ago I came across Albert Nock\’s dissertation on the prophet Isaiah and the concept of the Remnant and that said it all. He says there are only two things we know about the Remnant, that we don\’t know who they are and that the message will reach them. This has helped me to try to speak wisely and honestly even to fools and liars, not because I have any chance to convince them, nobody can. But those that can be convinced may be listening and those that already are convinced need encouragement. We can only drop the nuggets, not push them into people\’s pockets.

I am humbled and grateful for your kind comments. This article perfectly sums up the general evidence against socialism. The comments after are good but some pushing State collectivism are insisting on not defending their ideas based on history but instead are making esoteric and theoretic arguments based on emotionalism. They are oblivious to the irony of the position this puts them in. They, who reject faith and believe themselves to be the vanguard of enlightened scientific fact, now find themselves rejecting the facts of history in favor of their faith in this ideology!

Sir Henry Maine said that no man is at liberty to attack private property and at the same time claim he values civilization. What socialism and all forms of collectivism represent is a regression in civilization not progress at all. It destroys meritocracy, the system by which individuals can and do own the fruits of their own labor, in favor of a system of privilege, where anyone can demand all manner of reward at the expense of others based on the position they occupy, either as hander out of or the receiver of this State organized theft. This is a Middle Ages kind of government that only has the exception of instead of a king, we have the State.

No progress is possible in such a system and when this becomes manifest the collectivists, like the kings of old, respond with terror and murder to keep the masses under control. Every time. Every place. Do not be fooled by their promises of equality and freedom. Of progress and brotherhood. It\’s been tried enough and in enough different places to know how it all ends.
Comment by Loren Riley on 27 June 2009:

Socialism, in theory, does sound like a good idea. A perfect society of socialism is after all, Utopia. What is so wrong with a society that takes care of its lesser and weak? What is so wrong with the proletarians organizing themselves and having their own government instead of letting imperialism do it for them? After all, is it not morally commendable to take care of each other? To share?

I think the answer to that is “agency.” Of course it is better to share and help others less fortunate in society, but it must be a choice. In a free-market society, one has the ability to transcend their original financial state, and the agency to extend help to others accordingly.

When it becomes a matter of ‘legalized plunder’ in order to make sure that everyone is fed and clothed, then a society can expect to run into problems. No government can create wealth, not by raising minimum wage, not by forcing everyone to become financially equal, and not by printing more money, or going into massive debt. Laboring more than you consume, saving more than you spend, these things create wealth – not the federal government. For all it’s worth, the American government might as well just pass a law making poverty illegal.

Just like socialism sounds like a good idea, so does ‘universal health care,’ ‘minimum wage,’ and ‘welfare’ because no one votes for legislation that doesn’t sound like a good idea. The question really is, does the implementation actually work? And I think history speaks for itself.
Comment by Socialist America on 8 July 2009:

I wish America wasn’t so socialist. If it was actually a capitalist country people with children would pay MORE money in income taxes, not less, since they use more resources. Welcome to the USSR.
Comment by theabundantgift on 14 July 2009:

Found your blog after posting an email that is widely circulated, about a professors experiment with his class involving socialism.
The class got the point that socialism does not work because incentive to work leaves as soon as no one who works can get ahead of those who do not! Then no one works and the whole thing collapses unto itself!

This helps to reinforce the point so I have aimed a link toward your site. Thanks @theabundantgift
Comment by FUC on 20 July 2009:

If it weren’t for capitalism Karl Marx would not have had the time to think of socialism and communism.
Comment by Gareth John on 23 July 2009:

Mark I have to argue with your point on the value of prices being produced by syndication. House prices are sought by this method however a house now is worth 15% less than last year. There is no over abundance of housing in fact the opposite is true housing scarcity is now a future problem as cash flow for developers is a problem. So in 2 years time the price of a house could have risen by 30% again. Yet for that five year period housing stock may have been stable. A perfect commune is a workable idealistic goal. However as you say human beings are generally selfish and greedy (as an assumption, maybe capitalism brings out these traits) so the question is when does game theory kick in. Without actually simulating this or doing it to a very near realistic implementation who will know?
Comment by Gareth John on 23 July 2009:

As I can’t edit sorry for double post.

“Comment by Socialist America on 8 July 2009:

I wish America wasn’t so socialist. If it was actually a capitalist country people with children would pay MORE money in income taxes, not less, since they use more resources. Welcome to the USSR.”

Wow you really are very misguided SM. Do you mean the resources that they PAY for either flat rate or metered like electricity and water? Do you mean the income tax that is quite fairly a percentage of an earning? A single mother of two on £20,000pa (say tax is 10%) would pay £2000 tax. But you would rather her as a mother pays 20% tax. Thats great maybe then her kids would be malnourished and end up either dead or unfit for work in the future. Wow then your demographic would be weighted towards pensioners and instead of having a work force you’d have a nation full of economic burdens.

Forgive me if I would rather not live anywhere where you had policy powers.
Comment by Mike on 29 July 2009:

As humans, we are biologically programmed to feed ourselves first. After all, the lives and happiness of others is irrelevant if we ourselves are dead.

The best system for society to live under is that which embraces and TAKES ADVANTAGE OF those human traits that WE ALL share. Namely, our propensity for self preservation.

Capitalism is an ingenious system because it was built to transform the worst universal human characteristics into an unwavering and infinitely strong force for good. PRODUCTION. A successful/comfortable/secure society requires excess production. Without it you have famine. Socialism does not reward excess production therefore you will have none, accompanied by plenty of poverty.

In order for socialism to work, one would have to permanently and universally change human nature (remove interest in self preservation). Then it would work. Capitalism was made for people, Socialism was made to live in the minds of children and dreamers.
Comment by Mike on 29 July 2009:

Also, I think the quote that sums it all up is
“if everyone owns it, everyone treats it as if no one owns it”
Comment by Charles on 2 August 2009:

Who cares. Ask yourselves, who is winning? Yes we know that socialism doesn’t work. It’s not about working or not, it’s about winning. And we are winning. Yes, since the inception of this country my brothers have been at war with the constitution of this free society. Look who is President now, a nobody with little expierence, and now holds the highest office in the world. We have taken, little by little, the freedoms that you enjoy. Over the past 250 yrs, young in terms of a country, you have lost your freedoms. Now, in a bold swoop of over 100 days, you will lose some more. Thank you comrade Obama. Look, you had the house and the Senate (republicans) and the Presidency and did absolutley nothing, except spend money and take more freedoms. YOU HAVE NO ONE!!!!!! It is like the homosexual movement, resistence at first, now we teach it in the schools. You will get used to the socialist views and like it or else.
Comment by FG on 3 August 2009:

Right, well it makes sense; if too few win, it only festers resentment among those who are not on the winning side of things, so we swing over to political stand that favors those who haven’t won. An example of where too much self interest is bad. Freedom is an illusion anyway. Quit your job, grab a back pack and take a trip around the world; that’s real freedom. I don’t know what kinds of freedom current president is taking away from you?
Comment by aware on 5 August 2009:

He said….You will get used to the socialist views and like it or else….Proving my point in an earlier post that the real motivating factor of all collectivist Utopian ideologies is naked power and complete control. He could have added or else the camps, the gas chambers, and the gulag. If you press these control freaks with rational arguments the mask always slips to reveal the narrowed eyes and clenched teeth through which come the usual or else threat. And it is not just a threat.

It doesn\’t take much imagination to know how they will act when their power is unquestioned.

Then the next troll says….Freedom is an illusion anyway….if you are 19 or 20 then I would understand this gem, it is a perfect example of nonsense. Care to back it up with specific evidence or is this just an empirical statement?

And you end with this…I don’t know what kinds of freedom current president is taking away from you?…since your earlier statement proves you don\’t even know what freedom is it is no surprise that you don\’t know it is being extinguished. Here is one small example…if I take my money and buy GM stock it is a free act, if the State takes my money under threat and buys half of GM it is an act of coercion. In the first I can say yes or no as I, with no other interference, decide for myself. In the second I will contribute or go to prison, if not worse.

These posts are examples of a concerted campaign to confuse and undermine. This is well funded and organized by powerful elites who have a vested interest in concealing the truth about collectivism. It has always been ironic that these low-level agent provocateurs actually believe they will be exempt from the murderous forces they seek to install. History and human nature says otherwise.
Comment by Anthony Crachiolo on 11 August 2009:

Socialism is a much misunderstood, and misconstrued term. In fact, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, et. al. did not practice socialism. They simply renamed totalitarianism, or dictatorship, or oligarchy: Socialism. They did so in an effort to disguise their true nature–and everyone knows it. Even today, dictators hide behind benign words like “The Democratic Peoples Republic of Congo”. Hardly democratic, hardly a Republic. Any serious scholar knows this–and their reasons for continuing to misuse the word “socialism” seems to be to perpetuate misunderstanding, foment fear, and cling to an eroding powerbase.

Look at the actual Socialist policies around the world, say, for instance, most of Western Europe and Scandanavia and one seess healthier economies than ours, healthier populace, happier citizens, better quality of life, lower infant mortaility, less violence, cradle to grave care for the helpless, less hunger, less polution, less strife, safety nets that work, AND good, prosperous business and industry that is well-regulated. They have all of the freedoms we enjoy, live longer, and suffer less. Wow.

This lengthy list of “better than us” is uncomfortable to my American sensiblity–I want to live in the best system on Earth–but reasonable people will agree that the real socialism practiced over the pond works. All the scare tactics and creation of boogeymen in the world don’t change the facts, wish as one might.
Comment by ramesh aggrawal on 24 August 2009:

any article on THE PRESENT CONDITION OF DEMOCRATIC PROCESS&GOVERNANCE
do our so called elected representatives represent us every one knows election can only win by power,money,frauds
Comment by Stephanie on 24 August 2009:

\"Then the next troll says….Freedom is an illusion anyway….if you are 19 or 20 then I would understand this gem, it is a perfect example of nonsense. Care to back it up with specific evidence or is this just an empirical statement?\"

Aware,

I believe that \"freedom is an illusion\" can be true to a certain extent. The dictionary gives the definition of an illusion as \"something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.\"
Freedom, may be considered an illusion because most people know the truth; freedom is not free.
Freedom is often gained by bloodshed, by war.

Freedom may be considered an illusion because freedom can not be guaranteed. If we lost a war our rights could be taken away from us.
Freedom is/can be temporary.

People are spoiled in this country. We sue for a penny because we know that penny is \"rightfully ours\". But that\’s not going to be true forever. One day that penny will belong to someone else, and just because we owned it before doesn\’t mean we can take it back.
We are under the impression that these rights are guaranteed.(Well, most people are). But this is an illusion, technically, because we are deceiving ourselves.

This is just my opinion, and it makes sense to me. I\’m young, and don\’t know much, but I am learning.
If you agree or have an opposing view point, feel free to express what you have to say, and also feel free to correct me.

Thanks.
Comment by Justin O. Case on 25 August 2009:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) made a valiant effort to run a Socialist Country for a little over 70 years. Their downfall was not President Reagan saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.” Their downfall was their inability to micromanage their economy from the Kremlin.
Comment by Doug on 26 August 2009:

I agree with the article except that we realize that what we recognize today as “capitalism” is actually “Creditism”. Credit is how people (mostly), organizations and business, build. Nobody saves up and buys a house or starts a business from scratch using cash. And even the cash is just an IOU from the federal reserve which has no real value except what the market determines.
Comment by aware on 26 August 2009:

Stephanie….maybe you are young but you learn fast.

The ideal of the American system was founded on the concept that individual liberty is a commodity possessed by each of us at birth(…endowed by our Creator…) and therefore the only legitimate role for government is to protect that liberty from…..all enemies, foreign or domestic….(sorry but using quotation marks here just gets you lots of backslashes too). This is the beginning and the end of GOOD government. At the time and even now this is a radical idea.

I, and you, should be able to do as each of us please, anyway we please, so long as we do not interfere with anyone else\’s right to the same liberty. This makes no demands on others as to party membership, conformity, group identity, political affiliation, among other things. In fact, it is politically neutral, socially neutral, and is the very essence of self government. In such a system the only limiting factor is you, nothing else is placed in your way.

This is real freedom. At the individual level, the only place liberty even exists. It translates into concrete choices and actions that happen millions of times throughout the course of our lives, in ways that affect that course and you are the agent of the actions and choices. Of course this requires courage and a willingness to accept the risks and if required, the consequences of these decisions. Alas, there doesn\’t seem to be as many of this type of citizen among the hypersensitive whiners who pass for citizens these days.

When government does, or tries to do, anything outside this sole rightful duty of protecting this God given liberty, it becomes the State. The State is always in opposition to the truth. It sets up vast theft networks so it can dole out largess to its favored minions and calls it fairness. It organizes murder on a colossal scale and calls it our patriotic duty. All kinds of schemes are brought into being by it for the good of the people, no matter how many persons are destroyed in the process. It is a system of exploitation of the losers by the winners. The road of the State is like the road to Hell, paved with good intentions.

The State is Mr. Hyde to the Dr. Jekyll of government. It tries in its crude way to pretend it is the good doctor. It demands all to agree. But when you don\’t see it that way the response is bestial fury which revels the true nature of the beast. It can kill without consequence, on a massive scale. Something no individual can do.

To the point…..the State is the only mortal enemy of individual liberty there is or ever has been. In some forms it may seem more virulent and some more benign, but it always tends to the same goal…absolute, unquestioned, and total control. This is the exact opposite of freedom. Whether it is by gun barrels or tax inducements or any other method, coercion is used to intrude on the actions and choices of individuals and so proscribe their liberty.

And though the State wants you to believe it is the upholder of civilization, consider how it goes about gaining control. It offers fixes for free to the susceptible, and then a few more until complete dependence sets in. Just like a drug dealer at the school yard. Except in this case its not just the kid that suffers cause with the State there is no dissent. At its command we are all socialist or fascist or communist or whatever, with no exceptions.

True freedom isn\’t being a vagabond or an esoteric intellectual exercise. To be free of threat, either from individuals or the State, has real life benefits that can\’t be had any other way.

Sorry for the long post and rant.
Comment by Howard on 27 August 2009:

Aware,

Thank you for your defense of liberty.

I have always believed that freedom (or liberty) is unrestrained choice–the fewer choices the less freedom. Choice correlates directly to responsibility. Meaning, with the choices we make, we are responsible for our actions, including mistakes. Every choice or responsibility government takes (or is given) is a step toward state servitude.

Aware, are you aware of what communitarianism is?

Hegel believed freedom was servitude to the state. Communitarians believe that the balance (or compromise) between communism and capitalism is communitarianism. Clinton, HW and H Bush, and now Obama all support communitarianism. According to Niki Raapana of the Anti-Communitarian League, government is using the Hegelian Dialectic to guide Americans toward communitarianism. You will have the social justice of communism, the private / public partnerships of fascism, and the corporations still dealing through capitalism.

Of course, there isn’t much choice or freedom in communitarianism.
Comment by aware on 27 August 2009:

Thank you, Howard…..yes I have sneered at communitarianism for quite some time now. It is the usual name game you come to expect from collectivists. Ever since Hegel when their vaunted theoretical Utopias turn out to be real life death camps they regroup, repackage, and rename. This is an example of duplicitousness that has always been part and parcel of the collectivist mentality.

As far as I have been able to tell, the earliest advocate was Plato in his Republic, but Hegel and Rousseau are sure the undiluted version that fed Marx and Engels. If you are able to say anything to further your goals, soon you will DO anything for the same purpose. You don\’t need a Gypsy or a crystal ball to know how it will go, just look at the history of every, and I mean EVERY, time it is tried. Of course these thinkers mentioned where brilliant! There\’s no denying that. But they where wrong. Tragically. Ironically!

And there is no doubt, among those who actually KNOW things, that we(USA) are far down the same squalid, miserable road. But no matter how much effort and expense is expended. And no matter how long it takes, it will fail. All efforts and schemes that promise you can live at others expense have a shelf life. Ultimately it is an unsustainable path. Nothing can ever change that. This as true in your personal life as it is as a member of the Hive( how many retired worker bees do you think there are?….zero.).

We are told how great the soft socialism of Europe and Asia is. And how wonderful life is there. But it is not finished. The play is not over. They, and we, are staggering under the financial burden. Central bank money making and magical accounting have enabled the illusion to last this long. Plus they have been able to shift most of the costs to us for 60 years. Now we are broke. We\’ve been broke for years but thanks to our past(and fading fast) reputation we\’ve been able to dupe some foreign yokels into loaning us the cash so we can act like we\’re not.

This has a breaking point. Let\’s see what happens then. It has the potential to be quite hideous, as mass movements of the herd always are.
Comment by Savoir Thinaire on 27 August 2009:

Capitalism… Socialism…
I have long grown weary of the chronic and seemingly infinite life of the arguments for and against each of the above.

It’s about time we grew up and put down these labels, instead look at some un-named method of dealing with the afflictions that beset our citizens and industries both.

There are problems that can be justifiably laid at the feet of money-driven industry – not least of which is the disgusting situation of people who, having swallowed the eager persuading of loan companies and government both, and washed it down with a hefty swig of the power of personal ownership, find themselves dispossessed of all they saw as fundamentally theirs by the same organizations who told citizens they could have it, and should have it, by borrowing from them.

But in the same breath, it was the fault of those who believed the crap, that everything could come to them, and that power would come to them, through the voluntary belief in their role as servants to the lenders, willing victims of their own desired usury.

Whichever name you give to us, it is us, all of us, who are victims and guilty in the same breath. We made it so.

Unless and until we can successfully change our beliefs about our society, life will be good for those with the power to take, and those with the power to retain what they take.
And, for the rest of us, life will be about striving to live, only to find that the things we receive have been taken from us before we truly had them.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 28 August 2009:

If you would allow me to enter the debate for a moment without labeling me a “Pinko” and resurrecting Senator McCarthy to Blacklist me thus besmirching my commitment to Mr. Madison’s magnum opus I would appreciate it.

Justin is correct when he points out in his June 7 post that Socialism / Communism really has never been a central theme of the governments that invoke it.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was neither a Republic nor Socialist. It was not even Communist. It borrowed socialist / communist rhetoric and a few of the essentials at its inception but it was never run by a real collective empowered by the will of the proletariat that had any fear of being removed from office. That’s why Joe got rid of Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest of their ilk. He wanted to wear the crown without calling it that. He was a bloody handed tyrant not the “first among equals.”

There was no incentive to work because the people never saw the fruits of their labor. Capital was horded by the central government for their own consumption as well as being used to control the people rather than distributed equally as it should have been in a truly socialist / communist society. When the central government becomes bankrupt it doesn’t matter what political or economic system you have. If anything the USSR’s version of “Communism” was the antithesis of what Marx envisioned.

Stalin was in power from 1922 until he died in 1953. He remained in power because he had an army and killed just about anything that moved not by the will of the people and the same can be said for his successors. It should have been called the Soviet Empire with Joey as the new Czar but that probably wouldn’t have gone over well with his fellow revolutionaries so he had to pretend until he disarmed the people and killed or exiled anyone that might organize resistance against him. If the Founders in the US had a villain of equal guile and ruthlessness we might have suffered the same fate. The vision, wisdom, and selflessness displayed by the men that founded this nation is the exception in history, not the rule.

The same is true for the People’s Republic of China under Mao, the Republic of Cuba under Castro, and the Republic of North Korea as well. They keep calling themselves Republics, Socialist, and Communist, but they are not representative governments with socialist or communist cores any more than the British Empire was a Republic practicing communism under King George. These are nothing but dictatorships using modified command economies with ornamental names.

You can put a hat on a pig but it remains a pig.
Comment by Fred M on 6 September 2009:

James Madison Fan,

Clearly, you misunderstood the point of the article: That communism, socialism and fascism (all variants of the original Marxist theme) are the fastest route to tyranny. In no instance has pure Marxist socialism ever been tried. That is because “perfect” systems can never occur.

You’re falling into the same trap the author talks about early in the article: “Pure socialism has never been tried.” Right, because no system can ever be perfect. If we were dealing with perfect beings and a homeostatic planet with unlimited resources, then maybe socialism could work. But we don’t have perfect being and we don’t have a homeostatic planet. Since socialism is based on those ideals of perfection, it is fundamentally flawed from the start.

If you’re going to say that North Korea, Cuba and China are not truly communist, then you must also accept that America is not truly capitalist, as the government intervenes in our economic processes all the time and a true capitalist/free market economy would have no government interference.

Besides, if you’re going to compare economic systems based upon “perfection,” then I prefer a system where those who refuse to work live in poverty. I don’t believe in rewarding bad behavior.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 8 September 2009:

Fred,

It is not a question of \"perfection\"; it is a question of intent.

If I am leading a revolution and the people follow me because I claim that I am going to implement a Republic but I set myself up as Augusts Redux and enforce this with an army then I am a dictator and the government is a dictatorship by default. Everything after that is semantics.

Stalin’s intent, Mao’s intent, Kim Il-Sung’s intent, Castro’s intent, etc. from the very beginning was to set up a dictatorship. Communism was a word they attached to their cause to further this goal not something they took seriously. You can tell because of all the dead bodies that showed up after the fact (as Aware points so adroitly points out). A government cannot claim to be Communist if it rules against the wishes of the Proletariat any more than a government can claim to be a Democracy if it never holds an election. It is not that these governments were not “perfect” socialist or communist societies. They were socialist and communist is name only.

As a Capitalist I do not mind claiming victory over Socialism and Communism but I would find this more satisfying if we had actually been competing against real Socialists and Communists rather than Monarchies in Marxist clothing.
Comment by JoeH on 27 September 2009:

I love the discussion and article. I had an idea to analyze our current government and economic system and then devised a system in the early 90’s. I sincerely believe it encompasses the best of all methods of running a government and economic system. Please join my group on Facebook and post your ideas and comments there. I will be unveiling my proposal soon and have plans to submit it to those in power who I believe truly care about people and solving our broken system of government, taxes and welfare. If I am not correct in my assumptions, beliefs and ideas I am willing to listen to other’s comments and modify it accordingly. I need people interested in these topics to help with planning and implementation if and when it gets to that.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112416198980
Pingback by Exceptional « Thinking Things Through on 29 September 2009:

[...] Why Socialism Failed. While this addresses the subject suggested in it’s title, it also describes why capitalism works and deals with many issues raised by those who distrust capitalism. [...]
Pingback by Behind the Scenes in Hollywood « The Daily Get Up on 3 November 2009:

[...] out. They inspire and invoke feelings through their lyrics and music. They open discussion about government ideologies. They share ideas about our nation. They are constantly in an open dialogue with each other to help [...]
Comment by Daniel on 29 November 2009:

What? Socialism failed? The Euro is worth almost twice as much as the dollar. The E.U. makes 4 trillion more a year then the U.S. HAHA, you American idiots have to borrow money from communist China just to keep your economy going.

Ever since the deregulation laissez-faire era of Ronald Reagan, the U.S. economy has been plummeting. The 2008 crash, caused by derivitives that had no regulation at all. How can that be? Laissez-Faire failed, like it always has. The great depression, caused by Republicans who said, “The market will correct itself.” But it never did fix itself, did it?

You Right Wingers ever sit down and think about what you say? You advocate a no regulation system, right has a non-regulated asset crashes the world economy. Keynes was right, thus the reason almost every country in the world uses Keynes, not Ludwig Von Misses. Now, why is that?

Numbers don’t lie American Idiots
E.U. GDP = 18 Trillion
U.S. GDP = 14 Trillion

1 Euro = $1.49 Dollars

LONG LIVE SOCIALISM, AND THE EQUALITY IT BRINGS A SOCIETY.
Pingback by Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelan banks | kurtschemers on 30 November 2009:

[...] a broadcast from nationalized farmland in central Venezuela, he said: “To all the country’s private bankers … [...]
Comment by vivek noronha on 22 December 2009:

Why do you think socialism came into being in the first place ? It is because wealth was produced by the labour of the masses and it was appropriated by the few.

Give the workers a fair deal. It is they who need more of the incentives and private property instead of it being cornered by the capitalists.

The USSR became the second biggest industrial producer in 1930 a few years away from 1917. It went on to become powerful enough to challenge the USA. No mean achievement.

Who was the first man in space ??? Yuri Gagarin a man from Communist USSR.

Who is on the verge of bankruptcy now ??? The USA and her free market economy.
Comment by gabholli on 26 December 2009:

Karl Marx said earlier:

“But a better society will have all of the ‘automobiles, air planes, telephones,computers, and a real improvement in the condition of life for more people’ and it will be fair to everyone.”

I believe many Marxists refuse to define the concepts upon which they believe in. Mr. Marx needs to define “fairness.” Fairness relies on an assumed equality.

But in the socialist model, fairness will never result. The redistribution of wealth equally among all involved parties cannot occur, because someone has to perform the redistributing. The “redistributing parties” are by definition in an authoritative position; they have the power.

Seemingly, Marx had a very complicated and paradoxical notion regarding human nature: people are “monsters” upon reaching higher affluence, but nothing of the sort occurs.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, regardless of the form of power one wields, so long as the power wielded is absolute.

The money-handlers in the socialist model fit into this mold.
Comment by gabholli on 26 December 2009:

vivek noronha said:

“The USSR became the second biggest industrial producer in 1930 a few years away from 1917. It went on to become powerful enough to challenge the USA. No mean achievement.”

The United States’ debt to other nations will lead to bankruptcy unless we change course drastically. I will not attempt to refute your assertion.

However, the USSR no longer exists as in the most strict and literal definition. That country failed as well.

I assume you whole-heartedly believe the USA experiences problems now because of our capitalism. However, the USSR claimed stake on the opposite end of the economic spectrum, yet the country dissolved soon after the Berlin Wall fell.

If I follow your logic appropriately, neither our watered-down capitalism nor the USSR’s central planning worked. Then what alternatives exist?

Your implied love for the USSR doesn’t make much sense in this context.

The USSR no longer exists because of many reasons. Neither will the United States eventually(if we maintain our disastrous course) for very different reasons.

My point: the USSR failed, too.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 14 January 2010:

The US has an economic hiccup and we’re suddenly on the verge of bankruptcy? I had a cold last month does that mean I was on the verge of death? Oh no! Johnny has a fever! Let’s burry him! Would it be too much to ask for a little perspective?

In 2008 the US with a population of 300 million produced 15 trillion dollars and the EU with a population of 500 million produced 18 trillion dollars. That means the US per capita productivity was $50,000 per person compared to the EU’s $36,000 per person which is 28% more. Statistics requires context.

I don’t know why we’re going back to 1930 but if you look at the year 1945 the US GDP was greater than that of the UK, USSR, Japan, Italy, and Gemany – combined.

The USSR was never an economic threat to the US. If it weren’t for their nuclear arsenal the military threat would have been far less of an issue as well.

Sputnik and Gargarin were great accomplishments achieved on the backs of kidnapped German rocket scientists. The USSR never achieved anything that didn’t come at the barrel of a gun. 20 million or more dead will attest to this. It is usually more enjoyable when you go to work because you get paid rather than under threat of being murdered and your family sent to a work camp in Siberia.

Meanwhile the US is the only nation that has put a man on the Moon once much less multiple times and the only objects to have left this solar system have NASA written on the side.

If you have any other myths you would like me to dispell let me know.
Comment by James on 21 January 2010:

The big lie of the century,’’socialism”is responcible for the survival of the great illusion of the century,”capitalism”

To James Madison Fan and others of like mind; I am compelled to remind you that the US space program is not a product of private free market capitalism ! The US space program is in fact paid for primarly with public funds,much like the Russian space program !

How is it that you could not be aware that the US has the largest gulag population,”prison”of any industrialized nation !? By the way,where are the millions of Russians who were sent to the Siberian gulags during the time of communist rule ? Are they still in the gulags,despite the good will and moral superiority of the capitalist party ? Following the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps the world was treated to the horror stories of tens of thousands,”even millions”of Jews who had been incarcerated in those camps.Since the collapse of the communist party in Russia, we ceartainly have not heard from thousands,or even hundreds of prisoners released from the gulags.Ever heard of propaganda ?

Some people have argued that the communist system in the Soviet Union was essentialy hijacked by capitalist profiteres.I suspect that this is true,and I suspect that this is the cause of the collapse of the communist party and system.In essence Soviet ”communism” was not communism.The free market worshipers who reject this claim prove the validity of the theory they are denying when they make the counter argument that Russian communism collapsed because of the inability of the communist system to compete with capitalism ! True communism is in no way based upon compitition ! Communist production is preformed upon the basis of need only.China sports yet another example of a bogus communist economy.If China had a communist economy that country would not be the cheap labor paradise of a multitude of multinational corporations whom are raking in enormous profits !

Finaly I would like to say to all of you free market bufoons who believe that the disabled and the poor should not be allowed to live;you people are the scum of the earth ! Do you not have even one brain cell in your heads !? Do you not understand that the strongest amongst us are actualy those of us who are weak but yet live ? So you do not believe that human beings should enjoy blessings that are freely given ? You heartless idiots should realize that every breath we take as living creatures is a gift we have not earnend ! Every time we awaken in the morning and are greeted by the sunlight we are recieving a gift ! What freedom do we really have if our freedom is limited by only what we are able to earn ? The very essence of freedom lies in the enjoyment of the many gifts which we have not earnend ! This is a great truth ignored or perhaps not understood by those who believe the market is the source and hope of human freedom.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 25 January 2010:

James,

I enjoyed the first three paragraphs but then you had to go and ruin a good argument with ad hominem. I understand emotion being a necessary ingredient for any impassioned debate but you are not going to change anyone’s mind by calling people names. Why waste your time trading flames? It certainly doesn’t interest me.

If you go back to my August 28 and September 8 posts I already offered the argument that the USSR, China, and other dictatorships being mislabeled as “socialist” due to their assertion alone.

Official Soviet records confirm at least 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag under Stalin and these are only what they recognize. Meanwhile the US is having trouble putting to death mass murderers because the Supremes are worried lethal injection might hurt. Most historians attribute 20 million deaths to Stalin and some use numbers as high as 60 million but that includes victims of famine, deportation, and sundry other deaths that were a secondary effect of failed policy rather than intentional homicide. My sister was a missionary that spent months in Russia and I have friends that lived in Romania. Any suspicions that US history books are prejudiced are easily dispelled with a phone call or an email.

Yes NASA is funded by the public but that does not make the US socialist. Public works are part of any society. Rome was a Republic and its public works were legendary. It would take a purist to argue that a strictly capitalist society cannot have any public works. I’ve debated hard liners that think like this before so I understand your frustration but I’m not one of them. Moreover my concern is with the advancement of liberties not radical capitalism. Freedom in a Republic is a political issue. Capitalism is an economic issue.

I would note that that using your own point it is illogical to argue that Sputnik and Gargarin prove the superiority of Socialism since, by your own admission, the USSR wasn’t socialist.

While I do not mind a little jingoism, that was not my intent in bringing up NASA. My point is the advances being claimed by the USSR were developed by Germany and were stolen by the Soviets rather than something they innovated. Once the Soviets exhausted what the Germans brought with them their space program stalled. Once the US decided we actually wanted to go to the Moon not only did we catch up, we were sending people to the Moon repeatedly while the best Soviet rockets kept blowing up on the launch pad.

In addition to this it is not correct to trumpet the success of the EU over the US when our production per capita is more than 25% greater than theirs.

I am not arguing against the poor. I am arguing against confiscatory fiscal policy in a dysfunctional system that creates more poor than it helps due to an environment where the incentive is for the poor to remain poor while destroying the middle class at the same time. I want to see more people making more money instead of a government that taxes people into financial servitude while pretending it is philanthropy.

Why Socialism Failed

Filed Under: Featured

There Are 141 Responses So Far. »

Post a Response

Facebook Comments

Also in this issue

Book Review: All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty by P. J. O’Rourke

Book Review: On Looking Into the Abyss: Untimely Thoughts on Culture and Society by Gertrude Himmelfarb

Book Review: Inflation is Theft

Book Review: In Defense of Advertising: Arguments from Reason, Ethical Egoism, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism by Jerry Kirkpatrick

Book Review: Liberty Against Power: Essays by Roy A. Childs, Jr. edited by Joan Kennedy Taylor

Book Review: Liberalism, Conservatism, and Catholicism: An Evaluation of Contemporary American Political Ideologies in Light of Catholic Social Teaching by Stephen M. Krason

Book Review: Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action by Steven Yates

Book Review: Princess Navina Visits Mandaat by Count Nef (pseudonym for James L. Payne)

Knowledge, Ignorance, and Government Schools

History of the Voucher Idea

Vouchers: Politically Correct Money

Capitalism Is Mercilessto Capitalists

Lessons from a Year in Romania

Why Socialism Failed

The New Nihilism

A Walk on the Supply Side

The Minimum Wage Law