The Fallacy Of Socialism

I've seen a scary number of people--usually youth--who, when confronted by those of us who understand we're headed full-speed into socialism, seem to find no problem with it. When you try to explain to them that government--any government--is simply incapable of running social programs well, they can't comprehend it. You can't use logic with them because all they can see is the false perception that deep pockets spread wide should be able to solve most problems. Added to this is the fact that our public school system is hugely negligent in the field of teaching history, relying on revisionist propaganda or all-out omissions to keep people ignorant of the foundation of our country and our government. If you ask them about Marx or Stalin or the USSR, you'll get a blank stare, a shrug of the shoulders and maybe a mumble.

I was thinking about why so many seem to be okay with socialism. All you have to do is pose this question to someone to see where their head is at: "Do you think it's good to expect provision from those who have ability, given to those who have a need?" Of course, those who are truly educated will recognize this as the following idea put forth by Karl Marx "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This forms the basis for a truly communist society. Socialism is a "half-way house" to getting to communism.

But there are serious problems with communism and serious problems with socialism. In fact, they are too numerous to list, much less go into great detail (but I'd be happy to take on anyone who'd like to argue a point). First, compared to our system of government (or at least how it was first created) and our economic system, no socialist or so-called communist country has every succeeded in accomplishing its lofty claims, much less come close to the success, wealth and standard of living of America. This is precisely why European countries are so determined to convince us to adopt their ways, and why so many liberals in America--including some of our Supreme Court Justices--want us to be more like them. They hate the fact that we ARE so much better.

Second, absolutely, without exception, no socialist country has made the transition to true communism--those in power LIKE the power and will never give that kind of power up. Make no mistake, folks, everything you see Obama, Pelosi and Reid doing is to use crisis (or manufactured crisis) to shift more control and power to the government. Already there are rumblings just under the surface of a movement to either remove term limits for President or at least grant more terms. How convenient for a President and Congress that very obviously has been doing things to grab more power over private industry and individuals. Under the most benevolent circumstances, can you name a single program or entity that government has created (at any level) that eventually got terminated?

Third, as you see it unfold before you, the liberal, secular humanist masses are creating a self-defeating system--but it's impossible for them to comprehend that it could fail. Obama has said it himself, that we should "spread the wealth around". And who, exactly, would be the agent for driving this societal impulse for magnanimity? Why, the government, of course. Naturally, Obama, Pelosi and Reid have frequently used flowery, inspirational words, catch-phrases, all meant to convince us that the way we can participate in this Great Compassion is to dutifully do "the hard stuff" of giving up more freedom, more of our hard-earned income, doing with less, so that those "less fortunate" can have a "level playing field". What a bunch of hooey.

Show me anywhere in our Constitution or the documents of our founders where government is supposed to guarantee a level playing field. One of the more frequent references the liberals like to use is the phrase "promote the general welfare". Ah, but their INCORRECT interpretation is "provide the general welfare". The two are wildly different. If you care to look up what one of our founders said on this topic, James Madison said, "it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms." In other words, "promote the general welfare" was general term that enumerated a very limited role of government. Promotion. Not provision, not the use of public funds for the purpose of provision. It is a gross injustice to say government's role is to provide universal medical coverage or any number of other socialist agenda items.

If you look at the social programs, the "entitlements", that liberals have hoist upon us you'll find that they are consistently based on paying for them on the backs of the "wealthy". You will consistently find this administration using terms that cannot be construed in any other light than class warfare. In the latest version of socialized health care legislation it looks like the effective tax rate for "wealthy" will get close to 50%. In other words, let's punish success. Tell me something: Exactly where is the incentive to succeed if what you earn will simply be taken away and given to someone else?

This leads me to my next point. The Utopian world where everyone lives in a "level playing field" (aka, communism, though you'll never get liberals to admit that's ultimately the world they want) can ever be reached, especially under the kind of administration and Congress we have now, because of two important things. First, for there to BE resources available to "those in need" you must have people who realize the potential of "their ability". In other words, you have to have "the haves" in order to support the "have-nots". Human nature is what it is, and you can never ever get away from it. It is human nature to strive to achieve in order to be rewarded for our efforts. It is also human nature to be lazy. This is a constant battle in all societies. Do you actually think that people will continue to work their greatest potential if the payoff will ultimately be taken away and given to those who either refuse to live up to their potential or somehow can't?

No, they won't. And my second important reason partly explains why. We are sinful. It is our nature to be selfish (and we are seeing our society actually become more selfish even as we present the facade of being compassionate). The only thing that ultimately could drive us to work to our potential, regardless of the payoff, is a relationship with Christ. Colossians 3:23-24 "Whatever work you do, put yourself into it, as those who are serving not merely other people, but the Lord. Remember that as your reward, you will receive the inheritance from the Lord. you are slaving for the Lord, for Christ". Now, this should drive all who claim to be Christian, regardless. But you see the problem is that secular humanists are systematically driving every reference, every reminder, every nuance of Christianity out of the public sector. Ultimately, they want you to keep your "religion" in the darkest recesses of your home, and nowhere else. So, ultimately, it will be impossible to sustain a system of spreading the wealth because one of the very influences that might get citizenry to work to their potential, thus supporting the "less fortunate" will no longer be there as an influence.

And, so, their answer is again government. I can promise you that the end result will be a gradual but definite lowering of the overall standard of living. This is proven by looking all over the world. No nation has the standard of living we have. Our poorest people are better off than the poorest in other nations. I'm not saying they are comfortable, but I am saying they are better off.

We cannot achieve the world the liberals have conjured up for you. The playing field cannot be leveled without bringing that entire level WAY down. You cannot expect people to be successful if success is not fully rewarded. And those who would live a Christ-like life cannot, of their own volition, bless those in need if they themselves are not able to achieve. When the Apostles decided to sell their possessions and give to the poor, there was no government program, there was no 'entitlement'. They each, individually, CHOSE to do so on their own, out of love...not obligation, not mandate.