Skip to comments.Socialism is evil
Posted on 10/21/2004 7:38:23 PM PDT by vannrox
Socialism is evil
Walter E. Williams (back to web version) | Send
July 28, 2004
What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.
Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.
Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.
The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.
Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?
Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.
An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Contact Walter E. Williams | Read Williams's biography
August 17, 2004
Positive reader response to "Socialism Is Evil" was quite surprising.
That column argued that it was an immoral, not to mention unconstitutional, act for Congress, through the tax code, to confiscate the earnings of one American to give to another American in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts. It's immoral because it forcibly uses one person to serve the purposes of another. Indeed, that's one way to define slavery and other forms of servitude.
Several letters of disagreement interpreted my argument as being against taxation. They used the sleight-of-hand approach saying that we need taxation for national defense, the courts and other constitutionally authorized purposes as if that observation meant that taxation for any other purpose was just as legitimate. Let me be explicit. Taxes to finance certain federal activities are indeed legitimate as well as constitutional.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates just what federal functions Congress has taxing and spending authority. Among them are national defense, post offices and post roads, courts and a few other activities. Or, as James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.
?Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."
Nowhere in our Constitution is there even a hint of authority for most of what Congress taxes and spends for today. Don't be tricked by those who'd argue that Congress has such authority under the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison explained, "With respect to the two words ?general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them ?" Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The "detail of powers" or those "specifically enumerated" refer to what's actually laid out in the Constitution. The Framers had the foresight to see that these powers might need modification. That's why they gave us Article V as a means to amend the Constitution.
One reader criticized, "The essence of democracy is that the will of the majority conveys legitimacy to actions of the state." That's a sad commentary on both understanding and education. The Founders didn't intend for us to be a democracy but instead a republic. But more importantly, majority rule often confers an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Let's look at it:
Consider a few everyday decisions such as: whom we marry, what food we eat, where we live and what clothes we wear. How many of us would want majority rule to determine those decisions. For example, your family would like ham for Thanksgiving dinner and vacations in Mexico, but you're prevented from doing so because the majority of Americans decided on turkey for Thanksgiving and vacations in Canada. Were decisions actually made this way, most of us would agree that we'd be living in a state of tyranny.
Of course these particular decisions aren't made through a majority rule political process, but they do illustrate that there's nothing sacrosanct about majority rule; it can be just another form of tyranny. It's just as tyrannical for majority rule to determine other choices such as: retirement (Social Security), prescription drugs, health care and other unconstitutional uses of a person's earnings.
When the democratic process reigns in matters of constitutionally enumerated federal government matters, we have the liberty that the Framers envisioned -- anywhere else it most likely means tyranny.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Socialism is murder
this is a great article. thanks for the post.
williams mentions god and the bible in attacking socialism. socialism is a stab at trying to make things equal among men/women on earth. we know from the bible that equality among men on this earth is an impossibility. yet, democrats continue to want "heaven on earth" through big government. i contend that big government is evil, not just socialism.
remember too, that as a christian, we are to help our fellow human. big government robs us of the joy of helping someone -- we default to the gov't. in a sense, big gov't, by implementing too many social welfare programs, gets in the way of individuals doing god's work, and gets in the way of our relationship with god.
Socialism is for losers.
Excellent post. Socialism is evil and insidious too! : )
Socialism is evil I agree. I do think the leadership of the democrats have gone way beyond that, to total communism however. (and they of course, are the "state" who must be obeyed.)
You'll like this one, and I'm bookmarking it.
Communism, Nazism, and Fascism.
A socialist is merely a polite communist. A socialist believes himself moral because he only uses coercion instead of murder to gain his ends. (But the ends are ultimately the same.)
Typically for conservatives you are fighting yesterday's battles. Nobody proposes "socialism", nobody's "communist" any more. Today, they're "green", they're "progressive", they're for "choice", they're for "gaiety", labels that are pleasant sounding, acceptable to everyone, that you yourselves have cheerfully adopted ("gay" anyone?) Who's not for choice, who objects to being gay?
The Groton influence of Endicott Peabody showed in a speech Roosevelt gave at the People's Forum in Troy, NY in 1912. There he declared that western Europeans and Americans had achieved victory in the struggle for "the liberty of the individual," and that the new agenda should be a "struggle for the liberty of the community." The wrong ethos for a new age was, "every man does as he sees fit, even with a due regard to law and order." The new order should be, "march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us."
In that speech Roosevelt outlined the philosophical base of what would eventually become the New Deal. He also forecast the rhetorical mode by which "community" could loom over individual liberty. "If we call the method regulation, people hold up their hands in horror and say un-American,' or dangerous,'" Roosevelt pointed out. "But if we call the same identical process co-operation, these same old fogeys will cry out well done'.... cooperation is as good a word for the new theory as any other."
The fruit of socialism is genocide.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. Norman Thomas co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union
Marx argued (so I have been told) that the evils of capitalism would necessitate communism, through the stage of socialism, as WEW points out.
Of course, the only time capitalism's "evils" triumph over its virtues is when capitalists ignore moral restraint. Marx's prophecy is thereby self-fulfilling when the state hinders morality by setting itself up as the moral authority to its citizens, in place of God.
It really highlights the genius of the founders that they insisted on the sort of liberty and responsibility that would be the only way to allow for true self-government, and that only in a nation under God could it be pulled off. What an experiment!
Socialism is murder
Socialism is murder, slavery and evil.
But hasn't socialism PROVED it's capacity for better living all over the world?
Stop laughing... Hey it's not that funny!...
The libertarian Williams contradicts the constitutionalist Williams: An immoral action by an individual doesn't become moral when committed by a democracy, or a constitutional republic.
A socialist is a communist who doesn't quite yet grasp the truth that for his philosphy to prevail requires the enslavement and murder of other human beings. Upon coming to this realization, a socialist happily becomes a communist.
A socialist is merely a polite communist.
Socialism is Communism without guns.
Most disturbing is Kerry's position on Communism. Communism is the greatest evil that man has ever known. It is responsible for more than 100 millions deaths (more than all the wars in history combined), millions and millions of refugees and the subjugation and slavery of over 2 billion people since WWII. Communist regimes always follow a similar pattern. A Communist regime has never been elected, so first Communists must orchestrate a revolution, often with the support of funding from preexisting Communist regime. Next, Communists dissolve private property, nationalize media and begin a brutal purge of political prisoners and the upper classes. To conduct it's class warfare and maintain control of the revolting people, the state will militarize, establish a large secret police presence, and create horrific labor/reeducation camps. The economy collapses, failed farm policies result in starvation, refugees flee, and the government begins to export Communist revolution abroad. How far the government is willing to push the Communist philosophy will directly equate with the severity of these events and the suffering of their people. This exact pattern has come to pass in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, Angola, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Cuba. A few countries on this list have not experienced the true hell of Communism because the governments either didn't last long enough to take full root, or total Communist policies were not pursued in earnest.
From 'John Kerry's Foreign Policy'
Walt pretty much hammered socialism good, but he seems to have lost it a bit when morphing to democracy.. Democracy sucks every time in every place in every way, always.. Democracy "IS" mob rule. The biggest mob or consortium mobs wins absolutely.. OK for primitive gov'ts like in URP or the middle east even.. But only a republic like ours, which is unique for any republic where the States are soverign and the fed. gov't is merely a client is unique.. Sad to say the U.S. has been morphed into a democracy by democrats and republicans never even saw it coming.. Mob rule is what we have, not the republic we started out with.. The only way the republic can redeemed AT ALL is by civil war.. The democrats and some republicans will fight it tooth and nail thinking they are patriotic.. The time is almost pasted for that civil war too.. If it does not happen all the whining here in this forum about will result in just that...
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.~Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
What do you call President Bush's programs to help the illegal aliens?
Walter is great... bump.
i could not agree with you more.
check back and read later.
It's certainly a fact that Kerry has had an early history of flirting with commies.
But is there other evidence that he himself is a commie or socialist?
He is not a communist. Whether he is a socialist depends on you definition of a socialist. The line between liberalism and socialism is not always entirely clear. He has advocated socialistic policies, but during this campaign he has taken more 'moderate' approaches. If elected I believe Kerry will take the country closer to socialism, but not all the way. (I actually would argue that a large part of our country is socialistic now, example: our education system). Republicans are not withut faults either, this medicaid bill that Bush passed was socialistic.
hope taht answers your question. did you read my whole article? did it seem like I was implying that he was a communist? (he may have been when he was younger, I don't know)
"Socialism is murder"
Yep, that just about covers it!
Yes, I read the article, it is a nice resource, actually. I think I'll bookmark it.
I happen to agree with your assessment of Kerry, the Republicans and the state of socialism in the US.
It's hard to tell what principles Kerry has, if any. It would seem that they are leftist, but he is coy. The history that you've assembled gives an indication at least.
My definition of socialism is pretty standard, I think: a democratic political system in which everyone works for the common good of the community, this goal being achieved through an egalitarianism which not only seeks equality among men, but seeks common ownership of the means of production, in other words, collectivism. The fact that such a system is by definition totalitarian seems to escape most liberals, but, IMO, is appreciated by many politicians on the left, if not the right.
Many liberals that I talk to will tell me that their guiding principles are the same as mine, individual freedom!
But they always vote left, no matter what, "by the issues," as they say. The fact that liberals are tricked into voting, in the service of various causes, for giving arbitrary and increasing power to central government has led me to the recent conclusion that "liberals" actually do not have any political principles at all.
Of course here I am drawing a distinction between "liberals" and true socialists or leftists who do actually have political principles, the principles of socialism.
supposedly if you ask the question, What is liberty? And make people choose A) the freedom to do what you want or B) freedom from restraints
Conservatives generalyl choose B and Liberals generally choose A. Because that is how they define it in their minds.
"Of course here I am drawing a distinction between "liberals" and true socialists or leftists who do actually have political principles, the principles of socialism."
- as your tag line says, many Democrats are heard animals. Most of them know not what they do.
The absolute worst kind are those that know the results of liberalims/socialism but still politik in it for political gain. These people are scum.
Socialism is evil.
So why do so many (R)'s support it?
And your conclusion abotu political prinicpals is interesting. I'll have to think about that one.
This just in: The Pope is Catholic! =^)
As a little girl, I was shocked when I first learned what a foreclosed home was...even worse, that the gov’t sold it back to the public and there are actually ppl who want to buy these properties and not feel the least bit uncomfortable living in them knowing that the poor ppl/family who just lost their home are in a devastating situation right now.
Now, I am 23 years old and I am feeling troubled about applying for food stamps which my parents are pressing on me about. I refused to make an immediate decision and insisted that I do a little more research first to see just what food stamps are and how God feels about them.
I have only been a born-again Christian for about 2-3 years, and recently got baptized into the Seventh-Day Adventist Church last October. Prior to that, I was an atheist and not the least bit spiritual in any sense. Thus, I am sincerely trying to find out what the right thing to do is, in God’s eyes, and not doing something just because of tradition, peer pressure, biases, etc.
This was a beautiful response you wrote to the article...Thank you...I feel a bit better now that there are still people who asks themselves what God thinks before making a self-gratifying or self-proclaimed decision on government-related issues.
Please keep in touch with me, I would love to speak to you more on this. God bless.
Yes, socialism is evil! Communism is also evil! Fascism, which is socialism, is also evil! The article on Socialism is Evil, is excellent, though I am adding to it a bit wider horizon: Capitalism is also evil! We need to look at South America and see what it had done there as well as in some other places around the Globe. Therefore, we must add to our thinking and analyses the universal approach or virtue, which will place human relationships into the proper and desired position. That virtue is morality!
The morality is always proportional to the quality of the social and every other human relationship. Therefore, those societies that have achieved high living standards are always those that were moral societies. Therefore, our conclusion, looking at the map of our world, must be obvious that the highest standard of living had been and still is in the so-called western hemisphere. Why? Because the majority of its citizens, at one point in time, had personally adopted a (world)view that there must be a just, living, personal, and above all good, full of beauty Being on High, which rewards those who love Him/God because they believe that He loved them first. Therefore, the aftermath of this kind of life’s philosophy is and has been a cleaner and more just society. In conclusion, it is not just the system but it is a perception of this kind that when translated into deeds, gives, very much, the desired results.
Frank Dragash (email@example.com)
Book: How Then Should We Reason...
Although a democrat is not necessarily a socialist, they are leaning more in that direction all the time, actually i guess i considered my self a democrat in my younger days.
Back then it was ignorance, now i would be ashamed to call my self a democrat simply because it is a republic that was set up, not a democracy.
I hope i am wrong but i do not see it getting anything but worse and i doubt if most of the younger generation will even see it because it has not happened over night.
It will take a great disaster to get any ones attention, people will have to be starving to death and dropping like flies before they will realize the Government can not take care of them.
The Constitution is a Capitalist Document. Those who oppose that are enemies of the Constitution. Can Americans be unAmerican, you bet! The oath of office demands that the one taking the oath defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC!
Socialism is Communism without guns.