Essay #3: Socialism is Bad — VERY Bad. It Accomplishes Its Goals by Taking Away, NOT Adding.
Why? Well, the following makes the case persuasively, from a very philosophical perspective.
Socialism is a reductionist worldview. It requires TAKING in order to bring about its stated goal: equality for all.
It’s important to understand what the Socialist means by “equality.” For the Socialist, “equality” refers to: having stuff. Owning things (but not land, because land is power). Therefore, for a Socialist owning things is happiness. It’s why Socialists are constantly referring to the “Haves” and the “Have Nots.”
The Socialist subscribes to the notion that in the perfectly evolved society, everyone has as much as everyone else. He also believes that this society is inevitable, eventually, so he’s willing to take the steps he believes are necessary to bring it about.
For a Socialist, happiness is: having. In the Socialist worldview, the Haves are happier than the Have Nots. And: having more = being happier. Or, more “having” in the world equals more happiness in the world.
Okay, now that we’ve set the stage, here’s persuasive evidence that Socialism is actually evil. By their own definition!
Let’s take two people for an example: #1: Jeff Bezos, hundred-billionaire founder of Amazon, and #2: John Q. Public, average dude, earning $50,000 a year, and helping to support a family of four.
The long and the short of it is simple: you can’t make John as “happy” as Jeff — by the definition of Socialism: having as much as Jeff — but you CAN make Jeff as “happy” as John… by TAKING from Jeff a hundred billion bucks, give or take a few tens of thousands.
You can make Jeff as “happy” as John with the stroke of a pen, and by taking from Jeff nearly all that he has. However, by the Socialists’ own definition, they’ve made the world a whole lot SADDER, by removing a whole BOATLOAD of “having stuff” from it!
Also, let’s face it, the Socialists don’t give Jeff B’s billions to John, they give it to the government, what the Socialists dishonestly CALL… “the people.”
Continuing the thought exercise a bit. To keep things simple, let’s pretend that Jeff B is the only outlandishly wealthy guy in America.
Now, let’s say that you distribute all of Jeff B’s worldly wealth — and there’s a whole lot of it! — to every other man, woman and child in the United States. What would that do for every American? Well it would give every American about… $303. Yep. Three hundred and three bucks. [Insert Big Deal emoji here] (Note: in this fanciful thought exercise, Amazon doesn’t go away with the impoverishment of Jeff B., so we can carry this thing only so far.)
In other words, everyone would now be as “happy” — or would “have” as much — as everyone else. There’d be no “Haves” or “Have Nots“… only “Have The Same’s.” Equality! Everyone would be equal, and equally “happy,” because they’d be equally poor, just as the Socialists intend.
Socialists make everyone equal by TAKING, by increasing misery throughout the nation, and throughout the world.
And this is what HAS, indeed, happened in every country based around the Socialist ideology. It’s always become some kind of Third World totalitarian hellhole. There’s never once been a successful Socialist country in the history of the world.
Now, let’s look at the Capitalist point of view.
Real Capitalists are all about equality too. Equality of opportunity. Why? It’s the best way to make it possible for those who Have Not, or who Have Less, to Have More. It’s simple, really, if everyone’s poor, then there’s no money being spent with which to make ANYONE rich. Capitalists WANT people to prosper, to get rich, and then richer. To grow the pie, with EVERYONE’S piece, including their own, growing right along with it.
A common lie of the Socialist is that Capitalists bend their efforts to ensure that they themselves get richer, while the poor get poorer. Wrong! That’s a nightmare scenario for a Capitalist! Because it can never last very long, and it inevitably leads to societal instability and dislocation.
For the real Capitalist, by far the best scenario is one in which EVERYONE is getting richer… and he’s leading the pack. In other words, the best scenario for a Capitalist is one in which Jeff B.’s and John Q.’s happiness are best equalized by John Q’s having a whole lot MORE… NOT by Jeff B’s having a whole lot less.
Capitalism is an expansionist economic philosophy. And, since it IS an economic philosophy, it concedes the Socialist notion that more “having” = more happiness, and it posits that to get people to have more — ie to be happier — you should do all you can to enable those who Have Not, to… Have. Then to Have More.
Socialism: Makes Jeff B. and John Q. equally “happy” by taking nearly everything from Jeff. It guarantees equal “happiness” by drastically REDUCING total happiness in the world. By making everyone miserable.
Capitalism: Enables Jeff B. and John Q. to be equally happy by making it possible for John to have as much as Jeff. Guarantees greater happiness by ADDING to total happiness.
To do all that taking, Socialists have to develop a society based on imposing on the people. Socialists must impose obstacles and constraints on the people to ensure that no one succeeds excessively.
By contrast, to do all the enabling necessary to allow people to prosper more, Capitalists have to develop a society based on removing obstacles from the people’s path to greater individual success.
Socialism is an ideology based on taking, on force, on coercion and constraint, and on reducing happiness.
Capitalism is an economic theory based on reducing constraints and obstacles, and thereby producing the best possible climate for each person to flourish to the greatest extent possible.
Socialism is… bad. Very bad. The only Socialists there are in the world today are either ignorant, or evil people. You can’t rule out both.