E-Newsletter No. 86                         February 2021          

Last month, we pointed out the fact that Socialism has an unbroken record of failure everywhere and every time it has been attempted.  We also asserted that Socialism is immoral.  Before we get to the question of morality, let’s review the primary reasons why Socialism has its history of failure.

Socialism runs directly opposite of the American Dream.  It promises to create equal outcomes, but it actually creates a vast inequality between a country’s citizens and the government elites (i.e., the Bernie Sanders types in Washington DC).  This is true in every Communist / Socialist country in the world.  Socialism takes away the benefits of hard work as it strives to create its “equality of outcomes.”

Politicians believe individuals are not capable of making important decisions, so they decide to intrude, rather than allow an individual to make his / her own decisions about what they want out of life.  Socialism inevitably tramples on an individual’s Liberty. A government must use force (coercion) to implement the elites’ decisions.

Freedom of choice is severely limited or eliminated.  This goes well beyond the issue of goods and services in the marketplace.  Taken to its (historical) extreme, Socialism has placed limits on an individual’s ability to choose their own calling in life.   Under a Socialist regime, your ability to keep your current job, or even change careers or follow your own dreams can become severely limited.

Under Socialism, all of a country’s citizens suffer.  Mild Socialism lowers a country’s standard of living.  Severe Socialism leads to mass poverty and deprivation.  This has been proven over and over again in the historical record – – The USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba, and most recently, Venezuela.  Socialism has left nothing but disaster in its wake.

If “everyone” owns the resources and means of production, then nobody truly owns them.  Socialism is an awful steward of assets.  It makes people careless and wasteful, and it eliminates pride of ownership and any sense of personal responsibility.  It should be noted that not all “renters” are bad people, but they have less of an incentive to protect what they have.

“Robbing Peter to pay Paul” is simply morally wrong.  There is no way to morally justify or rationalize it.  On the other hand, voluntarily using your own time and money to help another individual or family is called benevolence.  Charity and compassion are virtues.  Compliance with government coercion does not provide a moral equivalent.  To demand that everyone pool their resources and the fruits of their own individual efforts into a giant pot to be redistributed by politicians and government elites is morally corrupt and doomed to fail.

Inevitably, power is consolidated within the government.  The forced redistribution of wealth damages the web of relationships we rely upon to live full and meaningful lives.  The recipients of government-granted welfare become trapped in dependency.  Socialism seeks to suppress (replace) the human relationships that are fostered by religious congregations, social services agencies, charities, and other civic organizations.  The government becomes tyrannical when it tries to silence alternative ideas that are at odds with the state’s agenda.

Socialism creates dissent and stifles freedom of speech.  Government control and regulation of the media, political speech, and elections are the norm in Socialist countries.  Anyone with “free thoughts” or who dares to oppose the growing power of the government is viewed as being a threat.

As noted above, Socialism creates dependence instead of freedom.  It destroys peoples’ drive to be self-sufficient or to improve their lot in life.  Within a free society, a person’s creativity, innovation, and hard work are rewarded.  In a Socialist country, only the well-connected are rewarded.  Oftentimes, those rewards are bestowed simply for being a loyal member of the nonproductive bureaucracy.

Friedrich Hayek wrote a book that was published in 1944 entitled The Road to Serfdom.  Hayek warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning.  As many of us know, in medieval times, a “lord of the manor” would rule over his lands and his serfs, who could live on his land in exchange for a place to live, so they could grow crops for their lord and for their own consumption. 

Our Editorial Board has decided to update Friedrich Hayek thesis, by advancing it a few centuries, and bringing it home (to this side of the ocean) to our country’s Southern states in the years that led up to the Civil War, as we make the case that Socialism is Slavery –

Socialism-is-Slavery.pdf (f2ppr.org)

US Debt Clock – – January 1st – $83,400 per citizen / February 1st – $84,150