Posted on 03/09/2019 3:56:41 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
In the 1970s, my Dad flew from his home in Pennsylvania to a medical center in Houston to have a then-innovative bypass surgery that extended his life by more than three decades. At the same time, my wife's family was sending bottles of aspirin to their relatives in the Polish socialist paradise. That dichotomy—Americans receiving cutting-edge medical care even as Eastern Europeans were lacking the rudimentary medicines—always stuck in my mind as I've written about political systems.
To understand socialism, one needn't fixate on its most-horrifying elements—gulags, executions and endless repression. Think about the simple stuff.
After Boris Yeltsin joined the Soviet Politburo in 1989, he visited Johnson Space Center and stopped in a typical Texas grocery store. "When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people," he later wrote. At the time, Russians waited in line for whatever crumbs the bureaucrats would sell them.
Why are pundits and politicians talking about socialism again, 28 years after the fall of the Soviet Union? Donald Trump's vow that the United States would never become a socialist country got people talking. Good for him, even if he should stop praising and excusing North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, who runs a communist dystopia often described as the "the world's biggest open prison camp."
The real reason for the renewed discussion, however, comes from politicians on the other side of the spectrum. It's apparently hip to be a socialist now, even among contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. A year before Yeltsin's U.S. visit, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took a strange trip to the Soviet Union. A video of the shirtless then-Burlington, Vt., mayor singing with his Soviet hosts as part of a sister-city event has gone viral. That was ages ago. What bothers me is what he—and others on the Democratic Left—have said more recently.
In an article headlined, "Sanders could face more scrutiny for socialist leanings," The Washington Post referred to the 2016 primary debate between Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders was asked by the moderator in Miami—a city filled with people who fled Cuban communism—about seemingly positive things he had said about Fidel Castro and Nicaragua's socialist strongman Daniel Ortega. "The key issue here was whether the United States should go around overthrowing small Latin American countries," Sanders said. That was a transparent dodge. One can oppose American military intervention without having a soft spot for dictators.
These days, some progressives describe themselves as "democratic socialists," which makes the idea sound kinder and gentler. They aren't thinking about crumbling buildings in Cuba, starving children in Venezuela and genocide in Cambodia, but might be envisioning a facsimile of Portland, Ore.,—a place with cool, fair-trade, vegan restaurants and hip bars, but without all that private ownership stuff. Yet socialistic policies could turn the nicest cities into wastelands.
Apparently, the leaders in those bad socialist places didn't do socialism right. As a former Barack Obama national security adviser told the Post, "I think the challenge for Bernie is just going to be differentiating his brand of social democratic policies from the corrupt turn—and authoritarian turn—socialism took in parts of Latin America."
A turn? Authoritarianism is the inevitable outcome—a feature of socialistic systems, not a bug, because those systems empower government at the expense of individuals. On its website, the Democratic Socialists of America say they "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few." They don't offer many specifics, but perhaps your tenants will vote on the rent until you decide to leave the apartment business. These "new" socialists seem as utopian as the old ones. DSA notes that, "a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor." Until work is fun, though, someone must divvy up unpleasant tasks on a more equitable basis. You've been warned.
Despite air-conditioned homes, full bellies and consumer gadgets courtesy of capitalism, some Americans yearn for a socialist paradise. We can cross one off the list. In 2013, Salon published a piece about the Venezuelan leader's "full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism" titled, "Hugo Chavez's Economic Miracle."
Four years later (with a different strongman but same policies), the BBC described that miracle: "Despite being an oil-rich country, Venezuela is facing record levels of child malnutrition as it experiences severe shortages of food and an inflation rate of over 700 percent."
Maybe Venezuelans didn't do it right. Nor did the Russians, or anybody else. Or maybe socialism is a fundamentally flawed idea that always leads to misery by design. We shouldn't need this discussion in 2019, given mounds of evidence and victims, but here we are again.
Really?
Socialism? We've tried that dozens of times. It never works. You seriously think we need to try it again???
The only thing good I can think of about socialism is that it will bring an end to America’s obesity epidemic.
Because of an incurable, deeply wired flaw in human brains that dictates that heaven is achievable on earth.
Its ironic that every single time socialism is set up, it always dails because everytime the failure is blamed on the wrong people running it.
Also ironic that these same wrong people running failed systems adorn tshirts, romaticized movies, and ornaments of the so called socialist lovers who want socialism but say it fails because of these very same wrong people.
Castro got it wrong, but i still love him and have a tshirt of his with Che’s.
you know its a lie. because they dont reject the people they claim messed up their attempt at socialism. they still worship them.
Socialism is just another form of oligarchy.
There’s still time.
Why Are We Still Debating the 'Merits' of Socialism?
We are still debating the ‘merits' of socialism for the simple reason that journalists are cynical about society. No other conclusion is possible when journalists, who know that “if it bleeds it leads” and therefore journalism is negative towards society, claim to be objective. “Negativity is objectivity” only to a cynic.But cynicism is not simply “extreme skepticism.” Skepticism is doubt, and cynicism is best understood as the absence of doubt. For it is essentially impossible to be cynical about everything. If you are cynical about “A,” you are naturally inclined by default to naiveté about the opposite of “A.”
Journalists are cynical about society and, perforce, journalists are naive about its opposite - government (see Common Sense).
Monopolistic journalism has been able to snow the public with its claims of “journalistic objectivity.” And monopolistic journalism will continue to propagandize for the “Democrat” socialist party until it is sued under antitrust law and libel law, and brought to (relative) heel.
“Socialism is just another form of oligarchy.”
Most definitely.
I’ve come to the belief that there is no way we will preserve what we grew up thinking of as America without physically fighting for it. It’s tragic.
As an aside, how ironic that we push for a firewall between religion and government, but we allow collusion between academia and government - which is much more pernicious and dangerous.
Great article! Forced-Sharing-Doesn’t-Work BUMP
Why are we still debating the second amendment?
Exactly! Why are we debating ANYTHING in our Constitution? Live here, in America, as a Free Person - or go start your own Commie Hippie Commune elsewhere.
Plenty of other Commie countries will GLADLY take you in!
A republican form of government is not the same as a capitalist economy. You can vote for a government take over of industry. Now the tricky part is that real socialism can never allow a vote to return to capitalism.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.- Sir Winston Churchill
Bingo!
Regards,
Because 80% of humans are sheep and a large majority of them were taught in the marxist schools that “Ignorance is strength”. So they learned to not think critically but instead to just follow the crowd.
JoMa
All budding and committed socialist know that all socialist revolutions follow the same pattern in the early days before the true leader emerges:
Those who fought against the tyranny of the previous government are not trust worthy and in the new socialist paradise only the trusted can exist. Since they betrayed their former government, they cannot be trusted in this one and so must be Purged ...
Generally speaking, the Purge will encompass some show trials of the more prominent, followed by a reeducation course, and then, disappeared ... permanently.
All budding and committed socialist can be proud that the revolution will live on after they meet their untimely pain-filled ends ...
True.
But a Republican Government is not the government Socialists advocate. Social Democracy is what they push. This is why they trash the EC. And Socialism by definition is political as well as economical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.