Comments on: With All This Socialism Going Around…

By: phil

phil — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:48:31 +0000

I enjoyed the read very much. I tend to align myself on a Libertarian point of view. However, I always enjoy reading and listening to the points of the opposing side, mainly bigger government, more regulation and control of the resources of the collective. I believe that form of government arrests the individual and limits the motivation and ingenuity of that individual due to the limited return on investment (time, capital, etc.) I have always wondered, also, how a socialist government would sustain itself. For instance the lesson in tragedy of the commons which if I may summarize states that if everyone is responsible for the welfare of the collective there will inevitably be those that will not work to full capacity. As more people don’t work the workload becomes heavier on fewer people perpetuating a collapse. In my opinion it is a logical argument as to why a socialist collective would not work in a country of our size – too many people looking for entitlements as opposed to earning it. I believe the post office, social services, public parks, public schools, public hospitals, etc. etc. demonstrate this from some level because the private counterparts for each, by in large, out perform the public versions in terms of quality of service, innovation/product development, consumer satisfaction, and limits on waste. What’s more is that the private sector can even turn a profit allowing for further innovation/employment opportunities and overall freedoms.
It is an argument that makes complete sense to me, but not to others and I think its because I may not know enough. If A=B=C and human nature being what it is how is it possible for a population the size of the US capable of achieving a socialist system of government that is more efficient (in terms of collective societal progress) than a more libertarian/capitalistic system? I guess that’s the question I throw to you. I suppose it isn’t the goal that we differ on but more the basic assumptions of how we reach that goal and whose responsibility it is to get us there. I believe its up to the individual to create their own destiny by adding value to his or her life while not infringing on another’s ability to do the exact same thing. From your perspective where do we differ in achieving overall satisfaction while respecting the differences in each person’s values and motivations?

By: Frank Schulte-Ladbeck

Frank Schulte-Ladbeck — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:42:27 +0000

Kasia, I would agree. My communist grandfather would have died at the hands of the National Socialists if other factors had not intervened. Due to the fact that I had family members of various political stripes, I did study them when I was younger. I never understood why we did not read Marx’ Manifesto in school or sections of Das Kapital along side of Adam Smith. Most cultures wish to demonize their enemies instead of understand them. My concern is that our culture here in the US is geared towards the soundbite now. Well,maybe we always have been. To grow, we have to go deeper.

By: Kasia

Kasia — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:43:23 +0000

If we are discussing the fact that the definition taught at school for anarchy was incorrect and was a pop version, can we also discuss that even your definition of communism is incorrect and is a pop version? Having read the book of Marx (trying to better understand other political systems & why millions died under the communist politics regimes), the definition of socialism AND communism in this country are used incorrectly.

By: Frank Schulte-Ladbeck

Frank Schulte-Ladbeck — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:26:34 +0000

A few years ago, when my son was in second grade, the school had a program to teach them to become better Americans. Part of the idea was to teach them what was bad. On the list was anarchy, which bothered me, since they used the more pop definition than what that political system teaches. When I witness the cries of socialism (particularly as applied to LEED-EB or other green/sustainable ideas, I am puzzled. When those crying socialism for everything they hate, and then state that they are Christians, I remind them that it has long been accepted that the teachings of Jesus lead to socialism. With the anarchy situation, I discovered that people did not wish to listen. I am beginning to think that it is due to a laziness of thought, which is not a problem with our educational system, but our culture. It is easier to cry socialism or state people like you are what is wrong with this country than make a real argument. To be honest, this is a problem which lies on both sides of the debate. We need to think through the implications of our statements, and we need to build valid arguments based upon verifiable facts. If we discover that our facts are wrong, then we should check our beliefs.