Socialism in America

© 2004 by John L. Bowman

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the written permission of the publisher.

iUniverse, Inc.

For information address:

iUniverse, Inc.

2021 Pine Lake Road, Suite 100

Lincoln, NE 68512

www.iuniverse.com

ISBN: 0-595-31196-2

ISBN: 978-0-595-76020-6 (eBook)

Contents

INTRODUCTION

THEMES

SUMMARY

CONTRADICTIONS

COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 1

THE HISTORY OF SOCIALISM

BEFORE 1700

THE FATHERS OF SOCIALISM

FABIAN SOCIALISM

SUMMARY

CHAPTER 2

SOCIALISM DEFINED

DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM

THE MALAPROPISM OF WORDS AND IMAGINARY PHRASES

PROGRESSIVISM AND THE AMELIORATION OF MANKIND

SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

WHO ARE SOCIALISTS?

CHAPTER 3

CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM

SOCIALISM IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD

SOCIALISM IN AMERICA

CHAPTER 4

THE REASONS FOR SOCIALISM AND THEIR ANTITHESIS

REASONS THAT RELATE TO THE INDIVIDUAL

REASONS THAT RELATE TO SOCIETY

CHAPTER 5

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SOCIALISM

ARGUMENTS THAT RELATE TO THE INDIVIDUAL

ARGUMENTS THAT RELATE TO THE SOCIETY

GENERAL PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS

CHAPTER 6

THE SOLUTIONS

SOLUTIONS THAT INCREASE SUPPLY

SOLUTIONS THAT ATTENUATE NEED

SOLUTIONS THAT ENHANCE INDIVIDUAL WELL BEING

TOLERANCE

THE FINAL SOLUTION

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRACY

THE INEVITABILITY OF SOCIALISM

SOCIALISM AND THE RISE AND FALL OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES

SOCIALISM IN AMERICA

MACHIAVELLI’S NEW RULES

THE VISION

CONCLUSION

BOOKS BY JOHN L. BOWMAN

ENDNOTES

This book is dedicated to all the forgotten, hard-working Americans, who are neither rich nor poor, who spend their lives diligently endeavoring to make enough money so they can support families, educate children, and provide for retirement while, at the same time, being gratuitously oppressed by their own government in the name of redistribution of wealth. May they rise up and smite their oppressor.

INTRODUCTION 

There exists a silent undeclared cultural war in America today. It is a vicious internecine battle between two determined and unyielding enemies. It has divided America and each camp is intent on eradicating the other. Combatants engage at all levels of American society. The struggle between the classes is ripping apart the social fabric of America. It is an acrimonious political contention enveloping political parties at the highest levels of governmental institutions. An economic conflict exists between those who are trying to keep property and those who want to take it. It is an ideological clash over the definition of man, the nature of the state, and the concept of private property. At its heart, this is an intellectual war over the very meanings of America’s most cherished ideals of freedom, justice, and equality. It is the third Great War waged over the fate of the Union. The first, the War for Independence, formed the Union; the second, the Civil War, preserved it; and this cultural war, may well dissolve it.

This war is between two world philosophies. On one side are the forces of democracy, individuality, and freedom, and on the other are the forces of totalitarianism, collectivism, and servility. The defenders of the American economic heritage of capitalism and free enterprise are pitted against the instigators who are endeavoring to make the country socialistic. The ethics of enterprise, reward for effort, and self-reliance challenge the ethic from each his ability, to each his need. To one camp private property represents freedom and happiness; the opposing camp sees private property as theft. Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a free republic with a limited invisible government is facing off against Karl Marx’s plan for the state to control the means of production and distribution of wealth. It is a war between the forces of capitalism, free enterprise, and democracy and the forces of the powerful juggernaut of socialism.

Karl Marx declared the war 131 years ago when he moved his socialist organization, First International, to New York in 1872. Before this move, from America’s inception up through the end of the 1800’s, there existed little socialistic agitation in America. America’s origins were decidedly non-socialistic. Karl Marx changed that. His move planted the seeds of discontent, initiated socialism, started a cultural war, and commenced the divisions seen today. The movement began as trade unionism, attacks on private enterprise and wealth, and political upheaval. The war began in earnest 100 years ago with the Progressive Movement and has since continued unabated under the aegis of the Democratic Party. Its great victories came during the eras of the New Deal and Great Society, and with those victories the movement captured America’s elites, artists, media, and intelligentsia. It has since advanced to convert America’s poor to its ranks and create an army of captive civil servants. Its goal has been to make America a socialist society and its method is to do it gradually. Its face today is creeping, or Fabian socialism.

The stakes are high. The socialist promise is security but the price is America’s ideals. That on which America was founded and everything that makes America great as a nation is being wagered as if in a dice game of chance, with each roll determining whether this great nation will remain united. At risk is the democratic form of government, a government where the people rule, to be replaced by an authoritarian state controlling the production and the distribution of wealth. At risk is freedom, which would be proscribed through coercive law, mammoth bureaucracies, and smothering politically correct social norms. At risk is the concept of justice, which would be bastardized to mean social justice where many are oppressed in order to redistribute a nation’s wealth. At risk is one’s right to equal treatment under the law as the rule of law gives way to capricious and arbitrary decisions by authority. At risk is an economic system of capitalism and free enterprise, which would be replaced by centralized state economic planning. At risk are the nation’s wealth, and the opportunities and security it brings, which would be replaced by poverty and scarcity. At risk is the right to own property, which would be destabilized and eventually outlawed. At risk are social norms, including the concepts of reward for effort and accountability, which could be replaced by a normative morality based on might makes right. At risk are the enterprise, self-reliance, energy, and optimism of a nation, to be replaced with dependence, collectivism, and stagnation. Socialism’s price for security is high.

It is a cultural war and the socialists are winning. Economically, federal, state and local government spending in relation to the economy has grown from 12% in 1930 to 42% in 2002. Federal spending alone has ballooned from 3% of the economy before the New Deal to 28% today. Federal spending on social programs as a percent of the national income has increased from 2% in 1952-3 to 58% today. To pay for these social programs, taxes on Americans have been raised dramatically. In 1928 Americans worked 1.5 months per year to pay their taxes. Today they must work 5 months. The socialists are winning because they have hit upon a strategy that works. Their strategy uses democracy, emphasizes need, and demands security to bring about socialism imperceptibly and incrementally. The strategy relies on people’s ignorance of the ultimate consequences of the socialistic system they advocate. The socialist strategy has prevailed in other countries and it is engulfing America today. This country is at war and capitalism and free enterprise are losing

The outcome of this cultural conflict will determine the fate of the nation. A debilitating concept has taken hold and is slowly strangling America to death. In time, the serpent socialism will inevitably bring more divisiveness, lawlessness, black markets, poverty, and misery. It will give rise to an American citizenry resigned, beaten, weak, and dependant. Under its hypnotic gaze will be a society of oppressed automatons who are fearful of government, fearful of others, and fearful of themselves. It will bring a society marked by stagnation and malaise. Ultimately, the fate under socialism will be totalitarianism, despotism, and tyranny, followed by violence and war. It is a vision of an awful future, and it may very well be America’s future under socialism. Americans must identify the enemy, which is Fabian socialism, and declare war.

The goal of this book is simple. It is to attack the cause of this cultural war and fight Fabian socialism in America. It is a muster to derail this devastating socialist trend. The intention of this book is to reduce the concept of socialism to its simple components, inert and benign, components unable to threaten America. This book is a clarion call for all Americans to wake up, see what is happening to this country, and fight against Fabian socialism.

THEMES 

Socialism is an insidious philosophy. On the surface it precipitates an economic struggle between the rich and poor, where the poor endeavor to acquire wealth and the rich endeavor to keep wealth. The struggle is ostensibly between the classes Karl Marx called the proletariat and bourgeoisie. To many the struggle lies in the political arena and can determine a nation’s political system. The socialist philosophy appeals to many because it appears compassionate by advocating an escape for some from poverty and misery, but it is much more than this. Socialism, at its heart, creates an ideological struggle over the definition of ideals, ideals such as the nature of freedom, justice, and equality. The interpretation of these ideals has tremendous implications in an individual’s political, social, and economic life. How ideals are defined will determine the very nature of human life, specifically as a social being. The socialist’s interpretations of these ideals are inimical to humanity’s long-term interests. They include injustice, loss of freedom, loss of individuality, loss of wealth, loss of opportunity, oppression, loss of morality, totalitarianism, lawlessness, and economic instability. They are interpretations that, in many ways, bring out the worst in man including envy, indolence, and resignation. At its worst, socialism is a philosophy that destroys one’s will and spirit.

Most Americans are socialists, and most unwittingly so. These unconscious socialist Americans think of socialism as some obscure and exotic philosophy that exists only in other countries like the former Soviet Union or Cuba. Indeed, they may even recoil at the very thought of being labeled a socialist. But they are because they support the socialist philosophy of from each his ability, to each his need. Most Americans expect people to be cared for according to their need, and for taxpayers to pay according to their ability. They expect the government to fulfill the role of caretaker and provider. They think progressive taxation is right and normal. They succor the socialistic cause because they have come to expect government, not themselves, to solve their problems. They are socialists because they have come to believe that they are entitled to certain essential benefits and services from the government. The truth is that most Americans today unknowingly think more like Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson.

The American socialists of today are ordinary American parents demanding more money for education, elderly Social Security recipients agitating through the AARP to protect retirement checks, civil servants lobbying to expand benefits, and poor people voting to preserve welfare checks and rent subsidies. Most Americans are socialists because they demand benefits and services from the government. These benefits and services are funded by a national tax policy based on the redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. These Americans have come to expect benefits and services that are mostly paid for by other people. Most of these Americans are members of the Democratic Party, which has become the primary vehicle for the advancement of socialism in America. These Americans have come to value security over freedom. This is socialism, and the proof is in the vote when benefits and services are threatened. This book is about these people, their socialist philosophy, and what their attitudes are doing to America. It is about how these average American citizens have come to turn their backs on America’s origins: origins that included freedom, individuality, and small invisible government.

America has become a socialistic state. Indeed, socialist Michael Harrington has said that what was once the socialist left in America is today the center. America has adopted the philosophy of state control of production means through massive governmental regulation of America’s business and industry. This is a level of control that has gone well beyond just mitigating the excesses of capitalism, but rather now regulates and directs much of America’s private enterprises. Only corporate nationalization remains unfulfilled. America has further adopted the socialistic philosophy of state control of wealth distribution. Specifically, the redistribution of wealth is embraced through a progressive tax policy. This policy, in the year 2000, made the top 25% of American earners pay 84% of all federal income taxes, and the top 1% pay 37.4%.⁵⁷ The policy robs Peter to pay Paul. America is rapidly becoming a mommy state, a complete cradle to grave welfare society.

It appears that the advent of socialism in America is inevitable. Socialism is an aggressive political philosophy with a seemingly innate ability to grow on its own, a philosophy metaphorically very much like a parasite. A parasite lays dormant until a healthy host can be infected. It does not thrive well on its own, or in unhealthy bodies. Once it has invaded the host, the parasite commences to feed off the host’s nutrients, enriching itself and growing. Ultimately, the host withers and dies as the parasite matures. Host destruction is an inevitable process because the parasite never knows when to stop, it just demands more and keeps consuming. Like a parasite, socialism thrives in rich capitalistic countries, rarely in poor undeveloped ones.⁵⁸ Similar to a parasite, there is no limit to an American’s demand for more governmental services, benefits, and entitlements. The demands are unrelenting, unprioritized, and unstoppable. Like a parasite, socialism has no self-equalizing system like capitalism, it just keeps consuming. Adam Smith said the beauty of competition in capitalism is that it automatically regulates markets, which makes it self-regulating. Socialism has no has no such restraint; it operates like a monopoly, and therefore continues unabated. It stops at nothing until the host is dead. In addition, like a parasite, it continues unnoticed, furtive, and incremental. It is only detected when it is too late. This parasite socialism has infected America and its progress appears unstoppable.

With the inevitability of socialism, it seems certain America will be destroyed as a nation. It seems certain from an intellectual and logical level. Specifically, the definition of socialism necessarily requires coercive and totalitarian government. This political philosophy must limit freedom and commit injustice to work and can only achieve its ends by using oppressive means. It seems certain on a historic level because socialism has a track record of destroying states that it infects. The former Soviet Union is one example that will be studied. Not only has it failed historically in states, but in communes as well. Every socialistic commune started under the socialist banner has failed. America’s demise seems certain also on a contemporary level because every socialistic country today is in one stage or another of failing. This point will be demonstrated by evaluating four socialistic countries: Sweden, France, Argentina, and Cuba. It seems certain that any country that methodically, consciously, and deliberately oppresses its most able and productive citizens, is bound to fail. With all this evidence, barring revolution, it seems certain that socialism will destroy America.

Many, no doubt, will think these statements fanciful, exaggerated, and extreme. They may think it preposterous to believe that America is a socialistic nation, that most Americans are socialists, that socialism is inevitable, and that it will destroy the country. Evidence, history, reason, experience, and intuition say otherwise. To those that say these views are extreme one asks if they consider Thomas Jefferson’s views extreme. Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of America was the antithesis of socialism. He was a founding father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and contributor to the Constitution of the United States of America, who championed freedom, individuality, small government, low debt, and low taxes. To those doubters, the question is then asked, Who are the real extremists: those that expound the views of our founding fathers, or those contemporary American socialists who are gradually inculcating the ideas of Karl Marx in America today? The answer seems obvious, and it belies just how far America has strayed from its foundations. To those doubters still unmoved, read this book.

SUMMARY 

The outline of this book follows a logical progression. Chapter 1 gives a general history of socialism. This is useful because it puts much of contemporary socialism in context. It will help define, evaluate, and explain the concept as well as its fathers. Chapter 2 endeavors to define socialism. It is particularly important to understand what is not socialism. Significant in this chapter is an evaluation of socialist vocabulary in America today. It is important to connect, for example, contemporary phrases like safety net and no child left behind with the classic socialistic concept of to each his need.

The first two chapters deal with what socialism is; the remaining chapters deal with what it does. Chapter 3 begins an investigation into contemporary socialism, including socialism in America and other parts of the world. Significant in this Chapter is the evaluation and explanation of the relationship between socialism and the cultural divide in America today. Chapter 4 commences the attack on the concept of socialism. It begins by presenting the reasons for socialism and their antitheses. This chapter analyzes the merits of the reasons for socialism. Chapter 5 is the core of the book, which outlines the case against socialism.

It seems only fair that if something is to be criticized it is incumbent on the critic to offer reasonable alternatives. To this end, Chapter 6 offers various alternatives and solutions for socialism. Finally, Chapter 7 presents the significant themes in this book: socialism is inevitable and it will, barring rebellion, destroy America. Included in this chapter is an alternate vision for America.

CONTRADICTIONS 

There exist two apparent contradictions in this book. These contradictions have either been reconciled or, at a minimum, defended. The first contradiction lies in a proposed solution to socialism: to inhibit inheritance seems in contrast to a general theme of this book, freedom. The state taking one’s wealth at death would appear to be taking one’s freedom, or the freedom to keep one’s property. This apparent contradiction is addressed, and with any luck will be resolved in Chapter 6. Generally, the individual’s freedom is not denied during lifetime, only the heir suffers the loss of freedom to receive unearned money.

The second contradiction is more difficult. This book argues that socialists have no right to appeal to morality to support their cause, but the author often points to morality as a cornerstone. Specifically, the case is made in Chapter 4 that socialists cannot appeal to some moral obligation to make an individual a brother’s keeper. The contention is that the socialist is expressing a sentiment, not a moral. However, the author frequently appeals to the concept of justice as an argument against socialism. This book argues, for example, that it is unjust for socialism to violate the rule of law. The issue is further complicated because this book argues that the law must be based on certain natural, timeless, and universal morals, and not positivism or realism. So, which is it?

It may not be possible to escape this second contradiction, however, four defenses will be offered. First, there clearly is a difference between the socialist concepts of justice and the true nature of justice. A socialist would say, for example, it is just to take property from one who can afford to give it, to provide security to another who needs it. In effect, the socialist justifies taking. The true sense of the word justice means to be just to all, not just some. In this case, true justice would say the person whose property has been taken has been treated unjustly. There is a difference. Further, the socialist’s form of justice seems itself to be a contradiction. First justice is advocated, followed quickly by a committed injustice. The point is that for justice to be moral it must be timeless and universal, or justice always, for everyone.

This point can be further illustrated with the difference between perfect economic equality and equal opportunity. Socialists, who advocate economic equality, must commit inequality because they must treat some people differently. Specifically, they must tax some progressively in order for everyone to have the same amount of wealth. Taxing progressively is a proactive and discriminatory act perpetrated by the state. It is a human-caused injustice. Equal opportunity is different. Everyone can have equal opportunity without some being treated unequally. It is possible to create equal opportunities without committing inequality. Creating equal opportunity, unlike economic equality, is more a matter of removing the barriers to equality. Equal opportunity is not proactive or perpetrated by the state, it just is. If some get ahead, because they had the opportunity, and people become unequal, it is due to nature because some are just more capable. Man had no hand in the source of the inequality; it was God’s choice. It seems wrong to hold a man responsible for an inequality he did not cause. For these reasons, equal opportunity is a timeless and universal form of justice, and justice in this case could truly be called moral, if such a thing exists.

Second, the concept of morality is often referred to as social norms. Social norms are different than morals; they are the traffic lights of society. There exists no imperative to follow social norms, unlike morals, other than the need for society to properly function as an organism. Social norms do not necessarily carry the concepts of right or wrong, they are rather guides, admonitions, or suggestions. The concept of social norms is appealed to often in this book because it appears, without them, society would fail. Socialism is a philosophy that destroys existing social norms, and therefore will destroy a society based on those norms, and that which destroys society should not be thought of as right or moral.

This brings on the third defense, which is that morality is often defined in this book as a Hobbesian Contract. Something is moral because those involved agreed that it is moral. Persons agree to commit themselves to some action they agree is the right thing to do. For example, two people agree they will not steal from each other. They have made a Hobbesian Contract, and the implication is that stealing is wrong for them. This is significant because socialism breaks this contract with from each his ability, to each his need. A socialist says what is someone else’s, is theirs, and what is the socialist’s is not someone else’s. It is all a one-way street. The taxpayer being taxed progressively, for example, who did not agree to be taxed so, has no Hobbesian Contract with the state, and is thus being treated arbitrarily and unjustly.

The fourth and final defense is that even if there can be no appeal to morality, and if all morality truly is nothing more than sentiment, the sentiments against socialism presented in this book are superior to the sentiments that argue on behalf of socialism. Specifically, the sentiments against socialism have better consequences than the arguments for it. Put bluntly, the author’s sentiments are better than the socialists’. Clearly, this is a more subjective argument, but a defendable point. It would seem, for example, that if this book were right in predicting that socialism will destroy America, virtually any sentiment that hinders socialism would be a good sentiment. It would be the right thing to do and therefore moral.

COMMENTARY 

The following are a few personal comments the author would like to make regarding socialism and this book.

INTENTION

It was not the author’s original intent to write an attack book on socialism, or to invite mischief. A genuine effort was made to evaluate socialism objectively and honestly, to bring common sense and a spirit of fairness to the issues surrounding the philosophy. Certainly, the author has prejudices, preconceived ideas, and opinions, but an effort was made to put these on the shelf and keep an open mind. An effort was made during both the research for, and writing of, this book to separate the author’s personal interests from what may be in the best interests for all. For example, the author endeavored to list every possible reason for socialism, and then consider them in a balanced, considered, and contemplative way. The author endeavored to use his best judgment based on the facts alone and without emotional interference. Some socialist arguments, for example, have merit and they were recognized as such. The socialist’s concern over the increasing disparity of wealth in capitalistic societies, for instance, was considered valid and is addressed in the solutions chapter with the suggestion that inheritance be inhibited.

The author also endeavored to keep the debate about socialism on a broad philosophical basis. An effort was made to avoid the particulars of partisan politics and focus on universals.

Political divisions like Left versus Right, Democrat versus Republican, Liberal versus Conservative too easily become labels with little meaning. Political wrangling does not, in this author’s opinion, solve problems; the problems are just papered over for another day. Jostling politicians do not ultimately resolve issues because they are more focused on a particular problem’s effects, retribution, or reelection, than the issue itself. For example, the political parties argue endlessly over who is to blame for spending the most and running up the federal deficit. The Democratic Party blames Ronald Reagan for increasing spending and big deficits, which is true. The Republicans accuse the Democrats for doing the same with their social programs, which is also true. However, the issue is much bigger than this. Increasing spending and increasing deficits are only part of the equation. Democrats, for example, can claim they decrease deficits by raising taxes and Republicans can claim they decrease deficits by lowering spending. To truly evaluate the particular issues of spending, deficits, and taxation, one must look to the universals found within a political philosophy. If a political philosophy includes the idea that all should be their brother’s keeper, for example, then certain consequences will naturally follow. Many particular actions, events, decisions, policies, and goals will then become understandable. A political party’s philosophy may lead to certain problems that will never be solved by arguing particulars; it will only be resolved by addressing the philosophy behind it. This is what the author endeavored to do.

The author must report that he was only partially successful in these endeavors. As the relative merits of socialism were increasingly investigated and weighed, the utter wrongfulness of the philosophy became apparent and the author’s opposition to socialism grew. Through extended reading of socialists like Saint-Simon, Proudhon, Marx, Fourier, and Harrington, and an expanded study of socialism in other countries, the author became convinced that socialism is a very pejorative political philosophy. In the evaluations of socialism by authors including Smith, Keynes, Malthus, Johnson, and Hayek, this author formed an understanding of the awful consequences of socialist ideology. The more he thought about the effect socialism had on some very cherished ideals like freedom, justice, and integrity, the more he came to oppose the very foundations of socialism. These investigations only supported and reinforced many of the author’s original opinions and prejudices. In the end, the author’s anti-socialist views were not changed but instead strengthened.

Unfortunately, because of this, there are political implications to this book. To be sure, both Republicans and Democrats are criticized when their actions increase the size of government, increase spending, increase deficits, and increase taxes. They are derided whenever they advance the cause of socialism. But the bare truth is that the Democratic Party, more than most others, embraces the very essence of socialist philosophy. It is the Democratic Party that endeavors to provide according to need with its advocacy for massive social programs, and it is the Democratic Party that has introduced the concept of from each his ability to America through progressive taxation. Most significantly, the Democratic Party has historically been behind every socialistic advance in American society beginning with the Progressive Movement, and subsequently on through the New Deal and the Great Society. These movements have caused America to become socialistic.

The author tried to avoid becoming cynical. It was his sincerest hope that the thesis of this book, that socialism is inevitable and that it will destroy America, was wrong. But this author is a realist and the facts support the proposition. It appears to be a sad, but true, forecast. The more interesting question though is not so much about the thesis itself, but whether socialism should endure. Ultimately, the question is whether socialism is the right philosophy, not only for Americans, but also for all humankind. Is this author, in other words, on the right side of history? The answer seems unequivocally yes. There are many reasons for this assertion, most of which are contained in this book. Two essential reasons stand out however. First, socialism does not work. Anything that cannot function must not be good. Second, socialism takes one’s freedom, and freedom is the ultimate good. This author believes history will judge him with approbation.

One last comment regarding the author: ultimately, the goal was to advocate an uplifting philosophy that advances the general welfare of humankind everywhere and a political and economic system that is truly in the interests of all. He believes that system to be regulated free enterprise capitalism within a free democracy. He is not, however, a prisoner to his beliefs. This author’s prejudices and opinions have been moderated by his compassion, ideals, and, hopefully, integrity. He has the ability to transcend his beliefs if presented with alternative good arguments, experience, or facts. He found, however, the arguments, experiences, and facts for socialism insufficient. The point is that this author believes the ideas in this book were arrived at honestly and with the best intentions. At a minimum, he may not have demonstrated that a regulated free enterprise capitalistic system within a democracy is the best, but he feels confidant that socialism has been shown to be one of the worst.

PERSONAL

This author is an individual operating a small, professional, sole proprietorship business. He is supporting a family, paying college tuition, endeavoring to save for retirement, and working to keep a small business enterprise afloat. He has no guarantees, entitlements, safety nets, minimum wage, or regular paychecks. His, and his family’s, welfare depends entirely on his efforts. For this, the government, under the influence of socialism, takes half of all his earnings in taxes, which it then redistributes to other people. He is taxed with federal income taxes, federal Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, Oregon state income taxes, City of Portland business license fee tax, City of Portland business license fee tax surcharge, Multnomah County business income tax, Multnomah County business income tax surcharge, TriMet (transit authority) tax, and Washington County property taxes along with a host of other hidden taxes. Many of these taxes are progressive, which means the author is taxed at higher rates than most other Americans. He is among the top 25% of American earners who are forced to pay 84% of all federal income tax revenue. If the author refuses to pay these draconian taxes, the totalitarian government will restrict his freedom by putting him in jail. This makes the author angry, very angry. A coercive government takes far more from him than he receives in benefits and services. It is an oppressive and unjust government. The government makes the author’s life worse, not better. Such a government does not help him; it hinders him. The government does not solve his problems; it makes it harder for him to solve his own problems. The government is not the solution; it is the problem. Such a government is not the author’s friend; it is his enemy.

One last comment about the author: he is not a scholar, but rather a generally well educated, thinking man. He is writing a book based on experience, study, and thought. He is writing it the way he sees it. Socialism is a complex issue and there could exist gaps in logic, information, facts, or analysis. It is this author’s belief, however, that the general theme in this book, which is that socialism is a very bad philosophy, is adequately defended.

WRITING AND VOCABULARY

In writing this book the author attempted to avoid platitudes, catch phrases, and spin. He tried to avoid words that are intended to evoke emotions and demonize. An effort was made to make the writing and vocabulary reveal the facts, tell the truth, and be accurate. Socialism, however, is an emotionally charged subject with highly charged emotional words and phrases, and it was often hard to avoid them. Some outwardly derogatory words, such as parasite, are used because they seem to the author to portray the idea of socialism accurately. Socialists would take offense at being called parasites. The metaphor of socialism as a parasite is used often in the book, for which the author does not apologize. Winston Churchill once said if one has a point to make, he should not be squeamish, but pound it home, and then pound it home again. Many points are pounded home again throughout this book.

Many words and phrases, which were once considered good, have been given a pejorative connotation under the influence of socialism. The author does not accept socialism’s diminution of these words and phrases. He uses them liberally, with original connotations and in proper context. It is also important to understand that many positive words have no meaning without an opposite word with a negative meaning. Socialism endeavors to discredit many words, which have good meanings, because their opposites, with the negative meanings, apply to socialism. Some examples of good words are strong, conservative, productive, rich, able, and suited. Their opposites are weak, liberal, non-productive, poor, unable (or incompetent), and ill suited.

Strong in this book means capable, forceful, ambitious, suited, talented, and willful. Strong people are people who strive, achieve, have ability, and are often talented. Weak is the opposite of strong. Weak is not intended to be a derogatory word, it just is. Weak people are generally feeble, less capable, not forceful, not ambitious, not always talented, not willful, soft, sometimes oscitant, and lazy, capricious, and ill suited. Some people are just weak; they have less will power, less ambition, and expend less effort. Strong people are more productive and often self-reliant, and weak people are often less productive and dependant. There is nothing sinister in these words, they just are. Everyone knows strong and weak people and their uneven abilities. Even the socialists, such as Louis Blanc, acknowledge such differences.

Able and unable are two such similar words. Some are just more able to do something than others. Some individuals are just smarter, stronger, and more talented than others. There is nothing wrong with being less able, it just is. It should be mentioned that successful people are not always the strongest or most able. Many other factors go into success such as hard work, persistence, and ambition; qualities this author admires. Lacking these qualities is the road to incompetence.

Some words have many connotations, which can cause confusion. Two such sets of words are productive and non-productive, and rich and poor. Socialists often object to the word productive because one can be productive in many ways. An artist can be productive at producing paintings, or a teacher can be productive teaching students reading, writing, and arithmetic. It is true they are all productive. However, socialists try to detach the concept of producing from the concept of money. They want to imply the productive teacher is as productive as, for example, the manager of some industrial enterprise. They object to a monetary scale because the teacher could then be judged as less productive. In reality, money is the criterion by which the market determines the relative value of someone’s contribution, or level of production, and the market is the most objective guide available today. If the market demands the manager of an industrial plant be paid $200,000 per year and the teacher of 30 students be paid $50,000 per year, the market is saying the manager is both more productive and valuable. It is saying what the manager produces, such as food that feeds 20,000 people, is more important than what the teacher produces, such as 30 students who can read, write, and do arithmetic. Paintings and an ability to read are nice things to have, but food and shelter come first. This is the sense in which productive is used in this book. It is not that teachers are unproductive; it is just that the market says they are not as productive as the manager. The most productive people of society are usually the ones socialism oppresses.

A similar case can be seen in the words rich and poor. Socialists, and in particular the Democratic Party of today, vilify the rich. There is nothing inherently wrong with being rich; indeed most people aspire to it. Many rich people earned their wealth, are productive, and contribute substantially to society. Other rich people got rich without effort, are unproductive, and contribute nothing to society. In addition, whether one is rich or not is very subjective. Is a person with $100,000 in assets and no debt rich, or must one be a millionaire? Generally, the term rich is used in its positive sense in this book. Much will be said of this subject later on.

The words suited and ill suited pertain more to an individual’s qualities. A person may be more suited to be a plumber, for example, than a stockbroker. The words also have the connotation of suitability to adapt and survive, such as in Darwin’s theory of the Survival of the Fittest. There is nothing inherently wrong or right with being suited or ill suited; a person just is one or the other.

The word liberal is used in its contemporary sense. Historically, a liberal was a person fighting against the church and totalitarianism, for individuality, individual freedom, self-determination, and free will. Liberal was often used to refer to the English form of mercantilism, which embodied many of the qualities for which liberals were fighting. The word is used differently today. Generally, today it means someone who desires change for the better, progressivism, and, unfortunately, socialism. The opposite, of course, is conservative, which generally refers to those who wish to keep things the way they are. Both terms, however, mean much more than these definitions, and neither is necessarily bad.

The final word that should be mentioned is malapropism, which is used in Chapter 2. The word malapropism comes from a character in Sheridan’s The Rivals, Mrs. Malaprop, who was known for her outrageous word blunders. The word means the ridiculous misuse of a word, and especially through confusion caused by a resemblance in sound. Some dictionaries state the confused words sound alike; others say it is not necessary. The author uses the word in the latter context, to put forward the idea that socialists, and many Democrats, often use words in ridiculous ways.

FORMAT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author uses charts, tables, graphs, and schematics throughout this book. Some of these graphics are simple, obvious, and general. They are used because they are descriptive and often more comprehensive than a literal description of what the author intends to convey. They often express ideas in a simpler and more straightforward way. The downside to these graphics is they are often too general. In the chart The Divide in America in Chapter 3, for example, the members of the Left and Right in America are identified. Obviously, there are many exceptions. Many women are members of the Right and many business owners are members of the Left. However, women are mostly Democrats and business owners are mostly Republicans, so the chart is generally accurate.

The number of contributors and authors to this book are too numerous to mention. A few people that he would like to acknowledge, however, particularly influenced the author. In addition to the many classic authors and thinkers referenced throughout this book such as Emerson, Smith, Keynes, Mill, Tocqueville, Toynbee, and Malthus, some contemporary writers include Joseph Ellis who wrote Founding Brothers and The American Sphinx, Paul Johnson who wrote Intellectuals, William F. Buckley, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Kenneth Minogue, Sheldon Pollack, Michael Hodges, Edward Younkins, and John S. Ambler. A special thanks is noted to Professor F. A. Hayek whose book The Road to Serfdom is frequently quoted. The author would also like to thank his old college roommate, John C. Coleman, and his friend Gene Bentley, for their insightful comments.

CHAPTER 1

THE HISTORY OF SOCIALISM 

The history of socialism as a movement began in the 1700’s in France with Saint-Simon and the Utopian socialistic thinkers. Before that it was nonexistent except for a scattering of religious and philosophic leaders who were motivated by a variety of concerns. Some of these motivations included a search for the best form of government, the misery of the poor, and oppression caused by autocratic leadership. Its prior expression during the early history of man can be seen primarily as aspirations of the weak, poor, and feeble. This band of humanity has experienced a long history of suppression by the strong in most ancient cultures from Greece to Rome, through the Middle Ages, throughout feudalism, and to monarchial 18th century France. Many consider the French Revolution in 1848 the first realization of socialism.

Saint-Simon, a French aristocrat considered the father of socialism, is probably the real source of the movement, which began with the publication of his book On Social Organization in 1825. The first one hundred years, or the 1800’s, of socialism is commonly referred to as the Utopian period. It was during this time socialist thinkers such as Fourier, Owen, Proudhon, and Blanc dreamed of a better world where poverty and misery would be eliminated. It is called utopian because their worlds were imaginary and generally unworkable. Robert Owen could be considered an exception, however, because he was an industrialist who actually instigated certain social policies in his working business.

Karl Marx, who must be considered the spiritual leader and prime moving force for socialism in the world today, commenced a split in the socialistic movement with the introduction of the Communist Manifesto in 1847. Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, abandoned utopian socialistic philosophies and advocated violent, revolutionary class warfare. This line of socialism was taken to extremes by Nikolai Lenin and eventually became communism in Russia during World War I. This branch of the socialistic history tree ultimately failed, as evidenced by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

During the period from about 1865 to 1885, it became clear to many socialistic thinkers, mostly British, that neither the utopian nor the radical Marxist forms of socialism would work. Consequently, they borrowed the best from both movements and embarked on a new process of socialism called Fabianism. Fabianism is essentially the effort to bring socialistic change about gradually and peacefully, primarily through the democratic process. This is the main form of socialism, often referred to as creeping socialism, that is seen today. This form of socialism is slowly eating away at the sinew of the American culture and will ultimately destroy the country.

The word socialism first appeared in English in 1839 as an adaptation of the word ‘socialisme’, coined seven years earlier in France. It is interesting to note that almost all of the early socialistic thinkers were French, which gives rise to the observation that socialism is essentially French in origin. Socialism’s rise is most often attributed to the rise of the industrial society and the consequent development of the working and urban classes. In reality, it may have been due more to a long simmering resentment against the oppressive French monarchy by the French people. Whatever the case, socialism certainly was, in many ways, born of an uprising of the working middle classes during the 19th and 20th centuries. The movement has since strangely metamorphosed from its historic roots as a means of throwing off oppression, to the modern day diminution of society’s most strong and able.

Many themes run through the ideology of early socialistic thinkers. Indeed, the vast array of themes often makes socialism a concept very difficult to fully grasp. The movement itself runs the risk of being weighted down by its own width and breadth. These themes address property, individualism, freedom, religion, poverty, misery, revolution, happiness, class, equality, competition, and the production and distribution of wealth, to name a few. These themes and the philosophies of the fathers of socialism themselves often conflict. In addition, subsequent socialist advocates have magnified these themes to include such things as sexism, war, and race. Most