Why Socialism Is on the Rise

de-blasioIt took capitalism half a century to come back from the Great Depression. It’s taken socialism half that time to come back from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In New York City, avowed socialist Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared that his goal is to take “dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities” — the gap between rich and poor. In Seattle, newly elected socialist city Councilmember Kshama Sawant addressed supporters, explaining, “I wear the badge of socialist with honor.” To great acclaim from the left, columnist Jesse Myerson of Rolling Stone put out a column telling millennials that they ought to fight for government-guaranteed employment, a universal basic income, collectivization of private property, nationalization of private assets and public banks.

The newly flowering buds of Marxism no longer reside on the fringes. Not when the president of the United States has declared fighting income inequality his chief task as commander in chief. Not when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said that America faces “no greater challenge” than income disparity. Not when MSNBC, The New York Times and the amalgamated pro-Obama media outlets have all declared their mission for 2014 a campaign against rich people.

Less than 20 years ago, former President Bill Clinton, facing reelection, declared “the era of big government” over. By 2011, Clinton reversed himself, declaring that it was government’s role to “give people the tools and create the conditions to make the most of our lives.”

So what happened?

Capitalism failed to make a case for itself. Back in 1998, shortly after the world seemed to reach a consensus on the ineffectiveness of socialist schemes, economists Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw wrote that the free market required something beyond mere success: It required “legitimacy.” But, said Yergin and Stanislaw, “a system that takes the pursuit of self-interest and profit as its guiding light does not necessarily satisfy the yearning in the human soul for belief and some higher meaning beyond materialism.” In other words, they wrote, while Spanish communists would die with the word “Stalin” on their lips, “few people would die with the words ‘free markets’ on their lips.”

The failure to make a moral case for capitalism has doomed capitalism to the status of a perennial backup plan. When people are desperate or wealthy, they turn to socialism; only when they have no other alternative do they embrace the free market. After all, lies about guaranteed security are far more seductive than lectures about personal responsibility.

So what is the moral case for capitalism? It lies in recognition that socialism isn’t a great idea gone wrong — it’s an evil philosophy in action. It isn’t driven by altruism; it’s driven by greed and jealousy. Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don’t give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution. Socialism violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness. Discussions of income inequality, after all, aren’t about prosperity but about petty spite. Why should you care how much money I make, so long as you are happy?

Conservatives talk results when discussing the shortcomings of socialism. They’re right: Socialism is ineffective, destructive and stunting to the human spirit. But they’re wrong to abandon the field of morality when discussing the contrast between freedom and control. And it’s this abandonment — this perverse laziness — that has led to socialism’s comeback, even though within living memory, we have seen continental economies collapse and millions slaughtered in the name of this false god.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Look2Liberty

    So right, but how do we prevail using a moral argument against people dedicated to immorality? It’s so hard to reason with liberals too. For example, conservatives believe that every individual deserves equal treatment under law. We also value consistency. Embracing racism would violate those core beliefs,yet liberals accuse us of racism every day. Everything is political war with them. If we waged political war without regard for decency or consistency, we’d endorse free abortion for all Democratic women.

    • NAHALKIDES

      We argue not to win over the Left, which is hopeless, but the great many people in this country who don’t have strong political views one way or the other. They were the people who sat on the sidelines in the last election, thus allowing that Marxist Obama to slide back into office for a second term, and we need to reach them in the future.

  • Judahlevi

    The name of the Democratic party needs to be changed to the Democratic Socialist party to be more honest. I am happy that Democrats wear the badge proudly, more of them should. Democrats need to be honest that they are going down the path of socialism and quit denying it.

    Individual rights will take second place to state rights. Commissars will watch your language to make sure you are stating the correct party line (which is where political correctness came from). The good of the many (determined solely by Democrats) outweighs the property rights of individuals. You will serve the state, comrades, or suffer the consequences.

    • popseal

      They must deny what they are or Democrats could not be so easily elected. Lying about itself is a foundation of Marxism.

    • muslimmustgo

      NEVER,NEVER,NEVER will I give up my freedom of individuality to a corrupt,oppressive,tyrannical cult that is communism!!

      • BagLady

        Then you have nothing to worry about.

        • tr60

          (He still has commies in his closet.)

    • Drakken

      I say let these commi democrats keep pushing their communist agenda, the law of unintended consequences will come about because of it. If anyone has not noticed, the people are getting angry and are now starting to say enough is enough, after talking about it, people will take action, so let the commis really let their agenda out in the open, then let the chips fall where they may.

      • BagLady

        I have obviously been left behind. I see no sign of communism in either Democrats nor Republicans. They seem to be two sides of the same right wing coin, both feeding off the same paymaster and benefiting the same few.

        • reader

          Obviously. Did you read the manifesto? Valery Jarred did. Many, many times.

        • fiddler

          Just say it! The solution here is TERM LIMITS! Frankly, the public is just TOO STUPID not to see that self-interest (perpetual careerism) is in full play here, not serving for awhile then going back to private life while living under the laws that you made like everybody else.

        • Drakken

          The reason you don’t see it, is because as a communist like yourself is not benefiting from it, yet.

        • Omar

          And I see no democracy nor a free market system in today’s Russia. Both the United Russia Party and the Russian Communist Workers Party are two sides of the same radical left-wing coin, both forcing the theft of private property from people and supporting authoritarian policies in today’s Russia.

          • Drakken

            You haven’t been to Russia have you? Russia is going increasingly the capitalistic route, while us in the west are going communistic, who would have ever thunk it possible?

        • bleedinell

          Read a little history. Socialism is nothing but communism with a smiley face.

          • BagLady

            Testing, testing. Can’t get into this site via BagLady anymore. What’s gone wrong?

          • BagLady

            Phew, it’s working again. I have dodgy software — third world prices since pukha Microsoft is the equivalent of 3 months salary for the average garment worker, whereas the alternative is $20. Hate the false economy of cheap).

          • Drakken

            It would seem that communist thing isn’t quite working out for ya is it? I wish I had some sympathy left for ya, but I am all out.

          • BagLady

            Teach not thy parent’s mother to extract the embryo juices of the bird by suction.
            The good old lady can that feat enact, quite irrespective of your kind instruction.

          • Bingeman

            How does the saying go?
            “Communism is liberalism in a hurry”.

        • Rdlake

          You’re half right. The DemocRats think the tax money trough has no bottom & spin every lie possible without contest opposition from the Liberal loving Media & spend it on social services which will get them the vote. Always crying for the little people who haven’t advanced in 50 years from all the bankrupting social programs. Meanwhile their buddies, the fat cat, statist Republicans who have been in DC for decades behave in the same manner & vote the same way using the ‘but’ word to defer how they differ from the Liberals. It’ll get worse until these sneaky, scumbag Republicans are ‘primaried’. They’re bent on destroying the new class of Conservative reps who want genuine change. Karl Rove, LaTourette, David Brooks, Commerce Dept are some of the maggots with $100s of millions & scare that their gravy train might de-rail.

      • Charles Canard

        Communism isn’t socialism, rtard.

    • oldman67

      The Democratic Socialist of America has 80 members in congress.

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    There has never been a better indictment of socialism, nor a better defense of the free market than Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. If you want to see how the free market can be morally inspiring, look no further than the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, founded by a priest, which has annual revenues of USD 20 billion.

    The moral evils of socialism have been brilliantly exposed by several popes in encyclicals such as “Quod Apostolici Muneris,” “Diuturnum”, “Nostis et Nobiscum,” “Humanum Genus,” “Graves de Communi Re,” and St. Pius X’s classic “Notre Charge Apostolique.”

    • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

      There are Catholics on the social democratic left too.

      • Naresh Krishnamoorti

        What’s your point? There are Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus and Zoroastrians on all parts of the political and economic spectrum.
        My point is that it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church that socialism is evil. Even Pope Francis has not changed that. And unlike other religions, the Church has one, unchallengeable, official teaching. Furthermore, no one has spoken to the moral and spiritual evils of socialism and the moral and spiritual goodness of free economic activity than the Popes.
        Finally, if you want to be morally inspired by economic activity, as many young idealists like to be, then instead of looking to corrupt systems like socialism, look to the good that companies organized around the principles of Rerum Novarum are doing, like Mondragon in Spain.

      • Bill_H2

        How do you think they ended up there?

    • BagLady

      On the other hand you could look at the Norwegian model: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536424/Everyone-Norway-millionaire.html

  • johnlac

    There will always be a market (no pun intended) for socialism, because there will always be a population of makers and takers. The takers will always want what the makers have without having to do the requisite, necessary work. It’s just not fair that someone has a dollar more than they do.

    • Well Done

      Often called the “crab bucket”.

  • tickletik

    No, capitalism is simply the concept of allowing men to spend their time as they see fit with whom they see fit.

    That’s it, that’s all there is to it.

    The evil of socialism isn’t that people are taking handouts, it’s that it pretends that there is such a thing as a free lunch.

    • chuckie2u

      Me thinks you are correct.

  • Well Done

    Like a computer virus in a SciFi movie, hard core Socialism has jumped into America. America is being taken over and rewritten to please the few, the proud, the “I’m going to tax away your money because all wealth belongs to the state”.

    • Charles Canard

      False. The Republicans, and especially the Tea Party, have successfully convinced the poor that their money belongs to the Koch brothers and the NRA, who own our congress and control literally every aspect of everything. These are the real Statists and dictators. Warren Buffett is the real hero among the superwealthy.

  • cedars rebellion

    Thus, the three phases of socialism in the West:

    1. always win the mass appeal using the tools of Goebbels
    2. always fail upon winning and seizing control
    3. totalitarianism/chaos follows that reset to begin at no. 1

    But to argue capitalism as a moral system? Reread number 1.

  • http://www.magicbailbond.com/locations/ Sanford Bail Bondsman

    Just 20 months ago the numbers were reversed, with a slim majority of young people, 49 to 43 percent, viewing socialism negatively. Undoubtedly the impact of Occupy Wall Street on consciousness is an important factor. In a matter of weeks, the occupy movement brought opposition to capitalism from the margins into the mainstream. With that has come growing interest in a real political alternative to this system.

    • reader

      There’s no more Occupy Wall Street for about 20 months now. Those were idiots used as shock troops for George Soros. Do you feel a real winner when you stomp filth when your master pulls his strings?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Free market capitalism is a fundamental aspect of freedom. I certainly have more right to my own earnings than any of these recently invented rights.

    Socialism doesn’t replace capitalism. It replaces the individual’s sovereignty with state sovereignty over capital. That’s institutionalized crony capitalism.

    • chuckie2u

      Even Capitalist enjoys the fruits of Socialism when they are tied in with the Political Elites. It is so easy to create policies discouraging competition.

      • Alain

        What you describe is corporate socialism or crony capitalism which has nothing to do with free market capitalism. You are correct that it is a serious problem and it gives free market capitalism a bad name. The present situation with light bulbs is a recent example.

        • Jon Wos

          Any attempt to modify the word “capitalism,” at best dilutes it and at worst is a contradiction in terms. State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, and more recently “Liberal Capitalism,” are by no means capitalism, and contain the seeds for its own destruction, which will lead inevitably to totalitarianism.

      • gray_man

        “fruits of Socialism”
        Hmmm ?
        “turds of socialism”
        There, fixed it for you.

        • kernals

          government money

    • Jon Wos

      Agreed, but “Crony Capitalism” is a misnomer, Its either capitalism or its not. “Crony Capitalism” is Fascism.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        We already have crony capitalism here in the USA and elsewhere of course. But calling that fascism in and of itself would be misleading I think. Fascism for one thing is institutionalized crony capitalism. Usually here it’s a result of corruption or at least abuse of the official process.

        But fascism is a kind of socialism. It just has a different image, especially if you use that label.

        • InfoStorm

          Sorry, buddy, but I’m afraid that crony capitalism is still capitalism. Capitalism is when the means of production (things used to make things) are owned by private citizens. That’s it. That’s the dictionary definition.

          As business leaders’ incomes rise, they use that income to better their own positions. Examples are buying machinery, buying labor, buying land, or lobbying for better regulations. “Crony” capitalism is all the capitalism that has ever existed. Capitalists have never not fought for their own interests. It would take a saint to do that. And most of us aren’t.

          Furthermore, Fascism is a far right ideology, socialism is far left. Fascism is a dictatorial system, exalting things like nationality to control people. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers, whether that be directly collective (people at the workplace deciding things by vote) or through government (lack of lobbying and the like to make it so the people each get an equal say in government). Russia was not communist (a stateless (no government), classless society. Russia was not socialist (Stalin was a dictator and the Party demanded work be done).

          Big government is not socialist. The US government is not socialist. Neither Sweden nor Norway are socialist. They’re all capitalist nations. Yes, they have regulations, but private owners still own things. If a nation were to make it so all the businesses in the country were worker cooperatives, it would be socialist because the workers would have a say.

          Socialism is a workplace democracy, capitalism is workplace dictatorship. Saying a capitalist deserves it because of all of the “work” they did is the same as saying that the Queen of England deserves to control the country because of all of the work she’s done.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sorry, buddy, but I’m afraid that crony capitalism is still capitalism. Capitalism is when the means of production (things used to make things) are owned by private citizens. That’s it. That’s the dictionary definition.”

            So socialism replaces capitalism?

            Notice I didn’t say that all crony capitalism is socialist.

            “As business leaders’ incomes rise, they use that income to better their own positions. Examples are buying machinery, buying labor, buying land, or lobbying for better regulations. “Crony” capitalism is all the capitalism that has ever existed. Capitalists have never not fought for their own interests. It would take a saint to do that. And most of us aren’t.”

            Power corrupts. Capital is power. Capitalists are corrupt. Let’s make the government sovereign over capital?

            “Furthermore, Fascism is a far right ideology, socialism is far left. Fascism is a dictatorial system, exalting things like nationality to control people. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers, whether that be directly collective (people at the workplace deciding things by vote) or through government (lack of lobbying and the like to make it so the people each get an equal say in government). Russia was not communist (a stateless (no government), classless society. Russia was not socialist (Stalin was a dictator and the Party demanded work be done).”

            Fascists must be evil liars in contrast with saintly socialist elites. Whew! Good thing that socialism is popular and the communists demonized fascism.

            Nobody has every used the rhetoric and ideals of socialism to abuse their political power and soak taxpayers. Bureaucrats are the saints. It’s the capitalists that are evil so make the bureaucrats sovereign over the capital! According to you socialism has never existed other than as an idea. OK.

            “Big government is not socialist.”

            A democratic government that wants to increase its power has to get the public to believe that it wants or needs to grow the government for the good of the people. Those angelic pols should also be sovereign over all capital too, don’t you think?

            “The US government is not socialist. Neither Sweden nor Norway are socialist. They’re all capitalist nations. Yes, they have regulations, but private owners still own things. If a nation were to make it so all the businesses in the country were worker cooperatives, it would be socialist because the workers would have a say.”

            I see. Some of them might like the ideas of socialism but don’t blame socialism when the Ponzi schemes fail. Don’t blame communism when the Soviet Union fails. Got it.

            “Socialism is a workplace democracy, capitalism is workplace dictatorship. Saying a capitalist deserves it because of all of the “work” they did is the same as saying that the Queen of England deserves to control the country because of all of the work she’s done.”

            Uh huh. And your experience running businesses and paying taxes is what? Nothing? You accept the Marxist bullshit because it’s easier to feel like a victim than taking responsibility for your own success or failure.

            So basically private ownership of capital is theft. Just like the queen of the United Kingdom kind of stole that power through inheritance, that is how capitalists gained power and sovereignty over the proletariat.

            I’m familiar with Marxist narratives dummy. I’m telling people how it plays out in the real world.

          • InfoStorm

            Yes. Socialism is meant to replace capitalism.
            In fact, if it doesn’t entirely replace it, capitalists attempt to put it down. Examples would include the Paris Commune and Anarchist Catalonia. And no crony capitalism is socialist, it is capitalist. Because that’s how capitalism works and has always worked.

            “Power corrupts. Capital is power. Capitalists are corrupt. Let’s make the government sovereign over capital?”


            Socialism does not have to be government control. In fact, many socialists advocate as close to no government at all as they can get, preferring democratic workplaces (every worker gets a vote about what the workplace does) instead. Like I said, Russia and China are not, were not, socialist. They were totalitarian.

            “Fascists must be evil liars in contrast with saintly socialist
            elites. Whew! Good thing that socialism is popular and the communists
            demonized fascism.

            Nobody has every used the rhetoric and ideals
            of socialism to abuse their political power and soak taxpayers.
            Bureaucrats are the saints. It’s the capitalists that are evil so make
            the bureaucrats sovereign over the capital! According to you socialism
            has never existed other than as an idea. OK.”

            I didn’t say anyone lied about anything. I said that Fascists used nationality to control people. It’s no different than using religion to control people. Furthermore, socialism does not have to have bureaucrats, there doesn’t even need to be a government. In fact, bureaucrats are so evil that socialism advocates removing the middleman. You’re still trying to push Cold War era lies about Russia being “Communist”. No actual socialist believes what you’re pushing.

            And no, there have been no socialist countries ever. Communism is a stateless, classless society. That is the definition from the left because that is what the definition has always been. Russia was so not communist that Lenin, leader of the revolution, claimed it wasn’t communist. He referred to it as “state capitalist” because he didn’t think Russia was ready for communism. Having a communist party doesn’t make you communist anymore than having a Democratic party means fights with Republicans about whether or not the country gets to be a republic or a democracy.

            “I see. Some of them might like the ideas of socialism but don’t blame
            socialism when the Ponzi schemes fail. Don’t blame communism when the
            Soviet Union fails. Got it.”

            Capitalism took around 400 years to establish itself. Do the failures in that time mean that capitalism has been a failure? When the monarchies damaged capitalist interests in favor of the nobility, did that mean that capitalism should have just been relegated to the history books? That’s nonsense. I’ve covered the Soviets here umpteen times, so i won’t address this one again.

            “Uh huh. And your experience running businesses and paying taxes is
            what? Nothing? You accept the Marxist bullshit because it’s easier to
            feel like a victim than taking responsibility for your own success or
            failure.

            So basically private ownership of capital is theft. Just
            like the queen of the United Kingdom kind of stole that power through
            inheritance, that is how capitalists gained power and sovereignty over
            the proletariat.

            I’m familiar with Marxist narratives dummy. I’m telling people how it plays out in the real world.”

            Nice personal attack, buddy. I’m automatically wrong because you don’t know anything about me? Good one. But knowing anything about me doesn’t change the message.

            I accept socialist ideals because I accept democracy. I believe in giving people a say. And I believe in freedom.

            To quote Abraham Lincoln: “The Democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely
            nothing, when in conflict with another man’s right of property”

            I believe in liberty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes. Socialism is meant to replace capitalism.”

            Hold that thought.

            “In fact, if it doesn’t entirely replace it, capitalists attempt to put it down.”

            You’re saying that a mixed economy is unsafe because private capital must be completely outlawed? OK. Sounds like a communist speaking but we’ll carry on.

            “Examples would include the Paris Commune and Anarchist Catalonia.”

            OK. I guess bigotry against anyone industrious is not quite like racism or sexism but it still seems pretty stupid and paranoid. Let’s continue…

            “And no crony capitalism is socialist, it is capitalist. Because that’s how capitalism works and has always worked.”

            Dummy, socialism is a set of idea and ideals. Today in the West where most of the world’s capital exists, most manifestations of government “socialism” take the form of crony capitalism. That means the state favors some private “capital sovereigns” over others.

            The idea of socialism in its essence is that workers should have sovereignty over their product because (according to the theory) they have no social power or not enough social power to negotiate “fair” wages. Furthermore the theory goes that not only do they get “unfair” wages but they get only enough wages to live. Thus they can’t ever move up and leverage their skills as sovereigns over the means of production.

            Socialism is the idea that something should be done to ensure the sovereigns don’t exploit the workers that have no sovereignty over capital and thus are exploited and become virtual slaves.

            When did these ideas come up? In Europe around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In certain times and places, this “wage slave” concern was valid if not literally true. And while there are people being exploited throughout the world, few legal residents of Western nations make only enough to live unless they are making student wages or they simply make bad choices. But ultimately the point is that they do have choices. To deny this is a big fat lie. We’ll continue this theme later.

            “Socialism does not have to be government control.”

            That’s true. But guess what? You don’t’ need permission for non-coercive socialism so the politics are limited to the group that elects to organize that way.

            For coercive socialism, who is going to do the coercing? Who is going to decide private property rights? Who is going to decide all of the things normally negotiated by the parties involved in free market capitalism?

            Of course you need the government or you’d be merrily enjoying your life in a socialist commune as we speak.

            “In fact, many socialists advocate as close to no government at all as they can get, preferring democratic workplaces (every worker gets a vote about what the workplace does) instead.”

            I advocate free admission to Heaven each night with breakfast served before returning to Earth. And returning is optional. Let’s see what’s actually possible.

            “Like I said, Russia and China are not, were not, socialist. They were totalitarian.”

            They were both. What you mean is authoritarian. And that is precisely what coercive socialism (basically any example of socialism that doesn’t already exist) requires. Who is going to take away capital from the owners?

            I have limited time right now but we can always return and expand on any of this. Let me just finish by saying that coercive socialism in the USA is insane and destructive. It’s delusional and built on lies. Virtually every theory that the advocates proposed over the years has been proved wrong. Not only that, most of the issues that drove the desire for coerced socialism never really existed in the USA unless you count people stuck temporarily in some situation. And that is just part of life.

            Socialism can’t improve one man’s life for very long without wrecking the lives of many others. It can play games with finance using the government, but in the end someone has to pay and the costs are always hidden because the expected magic doesn’t actually exist.

            Non-coercive “socialism” is something people have pursued for a long time and you don’t need to whine about it because everyone that wants to participate already is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I believe in liberty.”

            I’m sure you do. I’m equally sure you don’t understand the requirements.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And no, there have been no socialist countries ever. Communism is a stateless, classless society. That is the definition from the left because that is what the definition has always been.”

            So you agree that it’s delusional Utopian thinking to try to “transform” a successful “capitalist” (free market) economy in to a socialist economy?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Russia was so not communist that Lenin, leader of the revolution, claimed it wasn’t communist. He referred to it as “state capitalist” because he didn’t think Russia was ready for communism. Having a communist party doesn’t make you communist anymore than having a Democratic party means fights with Republicans about whether or not the country gets to be a republic or a democracy.”

            Was Lenin a communist that believed in or accepted socialism as an alternative?

            What is your definition of communist? What is your definition of socialist?

            We live in a constitutional democratic republic. The names indicate orientation. The DP is about the demos and the RP is about the constitution and republican aspects, not necessarily putting as much emphasis on populism. Names some times mean things.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Capitalism took around 400 years to establish itself.”

            Sure. And when did capitalism start? Unpack that for me.

            “Do the failures in that time mean that capitalism has been a failure?”

            In exactly the same way that car crashes indicate the failure of personal transportation.

            “When the monarchies damaged capitalist interests in favor of the nobility, did that mean that capitalism should have just been relegated to the history books?”

            Maybe monarchies and rigid social classes should have been. Like we already did in the USA. Stupid leading question.

            “That’s nonsense. I’ve covered the Soviets here umpteen times, so i won’t address this one again.”

            You cover nonsense with more nonsense.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nice personal attack, buddy. I’m automatically wrong because you don’t know anything about me? Good one. But knowing anything about me doesn’t change the message.”

            No, but it might inspire you to strive a little harder to come up with a message that makes sense in the real world. You’re just repeating believer tracts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I accept socialist ideals because I accept democracy. I believe in giving people a say.”

            So we agree that a pure socialist economy is not really possible, and absolutely not possible without massive coercion. But you believe in socialist ideals. And what are those to you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            To quote Abraham Lincoln: “The Democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely
            nothing, when in conflict with another man’s right of property”

            What you possibly infer from that quote is not something easy for others to discern. You evidently have your own creative idea about what property rights are.

          • Charles Canard

            BAM. Fucking brilliant, man :)

  • rbla

    Generally correct. However the increase in income inequality is a concern as it destabilizes our once middle class republic. Why has there been an increase?: deindustrialization owing to unfair trade, mass third world immigration and the intensification of crony capitalism whereby large business reaps great rewards for enforcing government social policies as in affirmative mortgages. And the Democrats who shout most loudly about inequality have been the big pushers of those policies.

    • Spinoneone

      And the Dems have been huge beneficiaries: c.f.: Goldman Sachs, George Soros, all of the major banks, health insurance companies, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Chrysler, GM, most labor unions, et al.

    • J

      The standard of living in this country is so high that income inequality should not be a concern. Income inequality seems like envy, not a valid moral complaint (for 95% of the population anyway).

    • glpage

      Government regulation of the market system has enabled those with money or those in power to advance at the expense of the rest of the population. That is why Ben’s statement, “When people are desperate or wealthy, they turn to socialism…” is true. Many of the wealthy embrace socialism not out of some moral values but because they are able maintain or increase their wealth with less effort. If they truly believed in socialism and its redistribution of wealth why are they not helping the less fortunate; no one really needs in excess of 20 or 30 million to live nicely, so why do they refuse to redistribute their excess? One, because they can and, two, because they’re hypocrites.

    • tr60

      “affirmative mortgages”? They couldn’t wait to get these people to sign on the dotted line!

  • verneoz

    The primary reason socialism is rising in the USA is the takeover of our schools, colleges, media, and Hollywood by leftist ideologues. This was planned. The Communists gave up the “violent overthrow” of US capitalism and transformed into the “hollowing out from within” methodology. This why charter schools, home schooling, conservative talk radio, and Fox News have become the major information sources of ensuring our freedoms do not disappear….reversing socialism will take time because we slept too long before the Obama wake up call.

    • J.

      Cultural Marxism I believe is the term for what you just described. Started in the Frankfurt institute in Germany by marxist think tanks. Political correctness, minority groups that display a false sense of oppression, re-writing history or teaching students with liberal bias curriculum, destroying family values, and stigmatizing Christianity etc…this type of thing is prevalent especially for the younger generations which is their specific target, this type of mentality has been promulgated through the entire ends of this earth. There is no use trying to argue or debate with a marxist or one indoctrinated by marxist ideology, simply telling them the truth may not work more than half the time, even with the death toll committed by communist governments on your side for evidence . What they do learn from however is the consequences of their foolish beliefs, when they suddenly see that socialism, communism, or any other ism isn’t what they thought it would be, and by then it would be too late but at the very least they will know now for sure that this “ideal government” isn’t meant for the welfare of the people.

    • Rdlake

      The irony of all this is the indoctrination carried out by ‘tenured’ teachers secured in their jobs, Liberal Media & hypocritical Hollywood with their multiple homes & multi million $ French summer villas. I want to vomit every time Oprah, Clooney, or these young bimbo starlets try to sell the cause for the little people.

    • oldman67

      This plan to take control of America came in the form of 45 communist goals read into Congressional record on January 10, 1963. http://www.rense.com/45 Communist Goals to…

    • Charles Canard

      Socialism is on the rise in colleges because educated people understand that in order to thrive, the benefit to society as a whole must take precedence over individual wants. As long as we have this “fuck you, I’ma do what I want cuz ‘Murica” attitude, society will never truly flourish. As said in Star Trek, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

      Let’s take ol’ J. here who commented above me. He literally says “any other ism” in his post, failing to recognize that Capitalism also ends in ism.

      Albert Einstein understood that we need socialism in order to survive. R. Buckminster Fuller understood that we need a basic income in order for society to be composed of caring, happy people, rather than droning, desperate automatons, interspersed with a few hyperwealthy folks who control literally everything. Do you claim to be smarter than these men?

      Capitalism breeds monopoly and is inherently unfair. There is more to socialism than Marxist “redistribution”. Socialism merely means that when making decisions, you honestly ask yourself these questions and choose the former: is the macro benefit to society my main impetus for this choice, is or my personal greed and accumulation of capital my main impetus?

      Capitalism will destroy humanity, if it hasn’t already. But I’ll guess that you’re all climate deniers on this site anyway, so you probably won’t be convinced of that.

  • BeautifulAmerica

    Good job, Ben. Very well-written and, as usual, absolutely true.
    “Land of the free, and home of the brave” has no meaning anymore.
    Land of government dependency and greed, home of the ignorant, and poor.

    • tr60

      People are now ignorant because they did not get an education and poor because they did.

  • monostor

    Lets do a different exercise of semantics, for as long as we dwell in incorrect definitions the conclusions will always be skewed. “Capitalism”, “Socialism”, Communism” are all part and parcel of Marxist terminology, therefore shortsighted. For the last few millennia up until recent times, less than a century in fact, economies were undisturbed by government intervention, takeover or centralized ownership, they were “market economies”. “Market economies”, recently grown to national/monopolistic proportions are exactly what their name says, an economic system. “Socialism/Communism” are encompassing all aspect of life: economy, social structure, cultural life, healthcare, etc., etc.
    What the Founders had in mind was a market economy free of too much government intervention so people could really attend to the pursuit of their own happiness. What we are witnessing today is the not too slow transformation of the country from the land of the free into the land of dependency, the land of modern times slavery.

    • NAHALKIDES

      There certainly were not any “market economies” in prehistorical times – do you really think the concept of private property had become that well-established? What little wealth there was would have been collectively owned by the tribe, with the individual perhaps having claim to a few tools and weapons such as stone axes.

      The Founders thought in political terms, not economic ones – they created a free government in which each individual was left alone to make his own choices, and accidentally invented an economic system we call “capitalism”. And yes, we are witnessing today the slow transformation (rapidly accelerated under Barry Soetoro) of this country from freedom to socialism.

      • monostor

        I did not go that far back and I thought to call “market economy” those economies that were not coordinated by the powers that be. The Founders did not think directly in economic terms but they definitely thought about creating the political background for a sound economy and the upward mobility necessary to implement it.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    Leftists believe themselves to be more moral than the Right. See http://clarespark.com/2009/12/16/perceptions-of-the-enemy-the-left-looks-at-the-right-and-vice-versa/. “Perceptions of the enemy: the left looks at the right and vice- versa.” This is another paleoconservative assault on their competition. Leftists believe that the Right is hypocritical. Watch television to see.

  • PatriotInk

    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Socialism by its very nature comes from evil people.

    • veeper

      americans are experiencing the very governments (city, state, federal) that the founders of america wrote about and warned americans about….

    • chuckie2u

      I suppose it is not evil for the Capitalist to fire workers to enhance their bottom line and pay their owners more money. All -isms are not evil. It is people who are evil and use the -ism for personal enhancement.

      • reader

        For some reason a simple leap of logic escapes you. If an evil capitalist fires you, you can dust it off and look for another job. But if the all powerful socialist government – like the USSR in its day – blacklists you, you will never again get ahead. You’re done. Just ask the former refusniks how it was.

  • Rosasolis

    There are many reasons why Socialism is on the increase.
    Most people do not realize that our world is now dangerously overpopulated
    by humans! This is causing terrible problems such as unemployment by
    too many uneducated people. Failure to provide good jobs for talented young
    people who have worked hard with their studies and have achieved
    excellent diplomas and qualifications…to provide them with a reasonably
    secure job and future in their chosen field. Allowing thousands of illegal
    immigrants to enter and live in any country, will only increase the problem
    of over-population!
    Some religious groups are very active in producing large families.
    How does the Social Security in America, or in Europe cope with:
    a an unemployed (immigrant) man with an uneducated wife, with 5 – 10
    children, requiring social support in order to survive?
    Perhaps this could continue on for several begin years of the 20th C.
    but this cannot go on anymore. Not in America and not in Europe!
    Socialism can no longer support Over-Population … no where in
    this world! Soon there will be no more animals to eat, and no
    more fruits, grain, and vegetables!
    The Maya Indians in Peru, were a developed community for centuries,…
    until Over-population drove their whole civilization to fall apart!
    Your present government will do anything to retain their popularity.
    They allow illegal immigration of thousands every week and then promote
    thousands of abortions!… Is this Socialism?

    • veeper

      over-population is the best tool in the toolbox of dictator and communist governments….

    • chuckie2u

      Humans have no natural enemies other than themselves. Over population can only be partially controlled by disease and war. So one can expect the Political Elite to decide to erradicate the unwanted and undesirable through an acceptable method of a deadly virus spread out in selected areas. Dropping big bombs makes too much noise and contaminates the environment.

      • veeper

        or…

        do as obama is doing promote a civil war…..

      • A Z

        Pathogens do not do so well given particular levels of hygiene.

        It was pointed sometime between 1994 and 2004 in a column in the Wall Street Journal. A dysentery outbreak or similar disease had spread along the west coast so f the America due to air travel or food imports. It was severe in Guatemala but produced few deaths in Chile. The columnist intimated that capitalism brought better hygiene etc and the bug had to adapt to a less virulent strain to be able to spread at all in Chile.

    • A Z

      Maya are in Central America (Guatemala & Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico). The Inca were in Peru.

      But your comment on the Maya still stands.

      Stress caused by overpopulation and subsequent collapse is expounded upon in Jared Diamons’s “Collapse” & “Guns, Germs, and Steel”

  • popseal

    Socialism/collectivism/progressivism sounds good to the historically ignorant. The same human nature that wrecked colonial and religion based experiments always wrecks any ‘system’ discounting personal industry and accountability. No bureaucrat can replace the self reliant responsible citizen.

  • chuckie2u

    The Altruism of Capitalism has given the Corporate Elite the opportunity to consider the life of the corporation to be devine and the worker only a contributor to its immortality. One can understand the appeal of Socialism when one sees workers at age 55+ thrown to the wolves to avoid paying a pension check. Planned attrition enhances corporate bottom line management. It is real easy to justify dumping workers with 10 to 15 years service to give the younger worker an opportunity to advance to the level of their departure.
    Then again our Political Elites have already fixed their retirement plans and need not worry about their financial futures..

    • veeper

      what you’re saying is the american way of life and attitude that caused america to rise above the rest has now given over to the way of life and attitudes of what causes nations to become just another SHEITE hole on the planet….

    • NAHALKIDES

      The bad behavior you are describing is a product of the mixed economy, not pure capitalism. We must beware of falling into the socialist way of thinking, where every problem caused by government controls is blamed on what remains of the free market. In a free market, companies that treat their workers badly lose out in the competition for labor; today, in the Obama Depression, there is so little demand for labor that employers can do as they please. The free market disciplines companies; the mixed economy gives rise to unchallengeable giant corporations who can get away with all kinds of things, until the ruling class decides to intercede.

  • veeper

    Why Socialism Is on the Rise

    America has become a deadbeat country of deadbeat people……

    while americans hide behind their flag waving and shouts of…USA USA USA

    a poor government plantation life is acceptable and just fine for over 50% of americans….

    and with amnesty for law breaking illegal mexicans….

    it will only become entrenched as a way of life in america….

  • A Z

    “government-guaranteed employment”

    That is the worst ideal. You know that it will take cronyism and nepotism to levels to previously undreamed levels.

    People will ingratiate themselves to the utmost. We”ll be a world or yes men and yes women.

    ‘If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – George Patton

    The world will die.

  • kilfincelt

    I have long blamed leftist judges for part of the problem. Many legal rulings have led to the abrogation of personnel responsibility among the general population. Case in point: Obama who rarely takes responsibility for what for the illegal actions of those in his administration.

  • Kwan

    Let’s not forget that in the logic vacant world of leftist ideology if citizen (A) has 10 cents more than Citizen (B) it creates a distortion in the space-time continuum, that must be corrected by the central government confiscating that 10 cents and redistributing it to the groveling masses minus a 99.9999999% redistribution fee.

  • veeper

    americans are experiencing the very governments (city, state, federal) that the founders of america wrote about and warned americans about….

    the warnings have been right in front of you for over 200 years…..

    you choose to ignore the warning…..while hiding behind your false pride, flag waving and shouts of USA USA USA….

  • Tasine

    I can see a certain truth in this article. But I see other things as well. I think it is ALL about politics, not economics. Politics of the left and politics of the right are in direct opposition to each other. The two sides do not communicate. Leftist politicians have no integrity, no honesty, no empathy or sympathy, and it is my firm belief that all of them are sociopaths. They, in turn, say and do whatever is required to do to get their followers to believe and think like they do. That is not to say politics of the right are a lot better, but I don’t suspect most of them of being sociopaths, whereas there isn’t a democrat in politics that I believe is NOT a sociopath.

    I strongly suggest those who have not yet read the series of books entitled “Left Behind”, do so. You’ll see correlations that will give you chills. People’s minds have been taken over – unable to see truth, facts for what they are. They see what they are told to see.

  • Ganesha_akbar
  • Ganesha_akbar

    Jonah Goldberg nails it again today;

    ‘In America,” Oscar Wilde quipped, “the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.” And they often do it in the pages of Rolling Stone….the failure of Communism didn’t put the debate to rest because the debate is eternal. Like those summer fireflies, it is a permanent fixture of the human condition, particularly among the affluent and fashionably rebellious young who are always eager to explain why this time is different.

  • John Davidson

    The first thing socialism accomplishes is a set of rules protecting those who advocate its principles. After that, anything can happen. Destabilization most apparent result as we are seeing now.

  • J

    “But they’re wrong to abandon the field of morality when discussing the contrast between freedom and control.”

    One of the problems is that private enterprise and big business have been successfully painted as “control” not as freedom. Thus people are presented the choice between democratic control (big government) and private control (business). The argument needs to be that the business/ market option is freedom of choice. Businesses do not force people to do things via badges and guns, not since the late 19th and early 20th century labor disputes,100 years ago.

  • ADM64

    The moral case for capitalism is that it is the only system that recognizes our right to live our own life, to own our property and person, and to pursue our own happiness. Man can’t survive except through creating the things he needs to live, and capitalism is the only system that recognizes his right to do so. Yes, it can be compatible with other systems of ethics, but this is the fundamental case for it. Anyone who embraces other political or economic systems, especially socialism, holds that man is a tool of others, a means to an end, and has no right to live his own life. I would also suggest that, properly understood, capitalism is the only system actually compatible with the Ten Commandments.

    • PhillipGaley

      I think, it may be not so existential and intangible as all of that and, to tie up loose ends with a few more nuts and bolts: “My people are destroyed in their lack of knowledge.”. So long as young people are unable to fulfill The Great Command — “Have dominion over the earth, subdue it.” — unable to provide for themselves—unable of intelligence, muscle, and skill to wrestle wealth from the creation surrounding—as “Without a vision, the people perish.”, just to that extent will they migrate into groups of similar powerlessness, and once among the fellowship there, of the common weakness in mentality, in mere notions of sharing the wealth, for provision and safety will they imagine for themselves common sense in looking to the ever larger group which government is.

      In a word, until industrial arts, and home economic classes are put back into schools, inevitably must the nation produce generation after generation of socialists, . . . never thinking to conserve what they themselves, have grown, built, or raised, but only spreading out, redistributing and sharing what little they may be able to get, . . . “Can I get a lift to the food-stamp office?”, . . . prisoners of simple lacks in knowledge, . . . yes—as Mitt Romney said—they also, are victims, . . .

    • Tim

      Additionally, capitalism gives one the freedom to voluntarily give to charities. Democrats notoriously don’t donate to charity because they assume the State will take care of the poor. There’s no room for individual compassion, because those deserving pity are the State’s problem.

      Super-rich people DO give to charities (e.g. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates), but the certainly won’t if they have to defend their wealth from the greedy State trying to tax them back down to an average level.

  • frodo

    Aren’t there a number of politicians on the right who are starting to talk about income inequality as a problem? Like, say, Marco Rubio? Is he a socialist?

    “So what is the moral case for capitalism? It lies in recognition that
    socialism isn’t a great idea gone wrong — it’s an evil philosophy in
    action.”: How is that a moral argument *for* capitalism? It’s more like question-begging and finger-pointing–which is also a common problem in critiques of capitalism.

    • Drakken

      Capitalism is rugged individualism, socialism is collectivist conformity. This country was founded on the rugged individual philosophy. One way or another this is going to come to a very bloody conclusion, it always does.

      • frodo

        Not capitalism as practiced in this (or most) countries today. Inequality is a product of corruption and is corrosive to the republic.

        This country was founded on the resistance to British oppression–”rugged individualism” as a notion only goes back to Hoover–and the colonies were founded by large state-supported enterprises and would have failed without that. Rugged individuals come from societies.

        I don’t think that socialism (even the version imagined above) is on the rise, but it cannot hurt to have a national discussion about inequality (and more importantly about the shrinking level of upward mobility in the country).

        • Drakken

          Inequality is commi speak for someone didn’t give me something because I showed up. The time for discussion and talking about it is over, the commi approach is coming to a head and the more these effing traitors in office run this country into the ground, the more likely after all is said and done that violence will be the only answer and right the ship once again.

          • frodo

            Inequality is a matter of data. There’s a documented expansion in the gap between rich and poor in this country. At least part of that expansion has nothing to do with merit, but with corruption and the manipulation of the markets that so-called free market capitalists revere. That’s not “commi” talk, and if it were, people like Marco Rubio wouldn’t be talking about it.

          • frodo

            Inequality is a matter of data. There’s a widening gap between the rich and the poor in this country, and that gap has relatively little to do with the merit of the rich or the failures (of whatever kind) of the poor. Much of that gap derives from manipulations of the market, corrupt practices, and those practices contradict the capitalism that so-called free market thinkers champion. It’s not “commi speak”–if it were, GOP legislators like Marco Rubio wouldn’t be talking about it, would they?

  • nomoretraitors

    David Horowitz gave a simple explanation as to why the American left embraces socialism after it was proven a failure: The only reason it failed is THEY WERE NOT IN CHARGE

    • Drakken

      History has failed to teach them any lessons, the more they try communism, the more they are going to fill mass graves with bodies. It would seem that history is now repeating itself, in our country.

    • gnubi

      They know socialism fails and they know they’ll fail. However, for some period of time, they’ll have the power, control, and privilege that other socialists were able to enjoy. What happens after that, they couldn’t care less.

  • NAHALKIDES

    This is an excellent, if short, article by Shapiro. It’s quite true that capitalism must have a moral defense if it is to succeed, and it is also true that the failure to defend capitalism has led us to where we are today. But like Ayn Rand, Shapiro places the blame on Conservatives, who do not now, nor have they ever within living memory, controlled the Republican Party. Rather, the blame should go to the Republican Establishment, which is decidedly un-intellectual (the Bush Bros., John Boehner, etc.) and uncomfortable fighting the Left. It is they who have failed to make the case for capitalism, losing on one issue after another by default to the Democratic Left.

  • BagLady

    Sorry, but this writer talks crap and isn’t worth reading, twisting reality as he does.

    • Drakken

      Silly commi, A Republic isn’t for you because it is founded on rugged individualism, not your effing feelings.

      • kernals

        remember this: the New Deal saved us from communism

  • BagLady

    Socialism always rises as the chasm between rich and poor becomes ever more evident.

    • JamesJ

      No, thats when socialism collapses

      • kernals

        look at Russia in 1917

    • reader

      Socialism causes to the proverbial gap to go up, because socialism destroys the middle class. Every marxist country featured elite ruling the impoverished masses. European socialist heavens are flooded with unemployed and destitute – just go to Greece or Spain and see for yourself.

  • Paul V

    Good analysis. But as mentioned Socialist Education is big part of the revival. Also the two Bushes let the Reagan achievements wither without a making a case for Capitalism/Free Enterprise or the Constitution. They are both intelligent, good men of integrity who are progressive in the Teddy Roosevelt tradition, but without the charisma and “bully”. They were rolled by the Democrats and Media to the frustration of Conservatives and Reagan Democrats. And to the detriment of all.

  • De Doc

    Socialism promises the moon, but usually only delivers damaged Moon Pies, that is, assuming the commissar of the Moon Pie factory met his monthly quotas.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRtmMxB5yw CrossWinds

      God is not a socialist. As our society becomes more ungodly, socialism becomes the god of choice. Caesar and Socialism make a perfect marriage…………….

      “But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him……. We have no king but Caesar.”

  • Bernie

    From each according to his ability (Send me all your money); To each according to his needs (I’ll send you back what I think you need}. Hey! What a great racket! It’s called Socialism. I could run a deal like that all by myself.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRtmMxB5yw CrossWinds

      “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].” -

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRtmMxB5yw CrossWinds

    God is not a socialist. As our society becomes more ungodly, socialism becomes the god of choice.
    The misconception that Jesus’ message is anti-capitalist
    probably stems from the same confusion that pervades all leftist thinking: the
    inability to distinguish voluntary from coerced human action. Jesus often
    exhorts his followers to voluntarily give to the poor. Nowhere in the gospels
    does he suggest that the Romans or the vassal Jewish government should be
    empowered to tax the wealthy to provide for the poor.

    Jesus also warns against the temptations that great wealth
    may expose one to. Being consumed with accumulating wealth to the exclusion of
    all other concerns leaves no room for devotion to God or charity to one’s
    fellow man. This is summed up in Luke 16:13 when Jesus says,

    “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one
    and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
    You cannot serve both God and money.”

    Again, Jesus charges his followers to manage their own
    passion for wealth. There is no suggestion that the government should be
    involved.

    Jesus doesn’t expound on political economy because, as he
    told Pilate, “my kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36). However, his
    parables have consistently pro-capitalist themes.

    In the parable of the bags of gold (Matthew 25: 14-30), the
    servants who choose to be capitalists with the master’s money are richly
    rewarded upon the master’s return. The servant who chose not to be a capitalist
    is not only not rewarded, he is “cast into the outer darkness, where there will
    be weeping and gnashing of teeth!”

    Certainly, the story is symbolic. The money in the story
    represents the abilities given to each individual by God. But even on that
    level the story does not support the anti-capitalists. First, the master, the
    ultimate capitalist in the parable, actually represents God. Certainly, Jesus
    would have found another way to make his point if capitalists were de facto
    sinners (like tax collectors).

    Notice also that the servant who chooses not to invest the
    master’s money is the one given the least. Symbolically, he represents the
    person who has the least natural gifts or who is born to disadvantage. Does
    Jesus suggest that the other two servants should be taxed to help him? No. The
    most disadvantaged servant is expected to do the best with what he has. He
    isn’t punished because he achieves less. He is punished because he fails to
    try.

    In two other parables, Jesus represents God as the owner of
    a vineyard. In Matthew 20: 1-16, he makes the point that it is never too late
    for salvation and that a repentant man can claim it the same salvation as one
    who has been devout all of his life. He represents salvation as wages paid to
    laborers. When a laborer who worked longer complains that he is paid no more
    than one who only worked an hour, the master replies,

    “Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me
    for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last,
    even as unto thee.”

    Again, the message is spiritual, but Jesus uses the very
    libertarian, capitalist idea that no one is entitled to any more wages than
    both parties voluntarily agree to.

    God is again depicted as the owner of a vineyard in Matthew
    21: 33-41. In this parable, the vineyard owner is even more overtly capitalist.
    Verse 33 in particular highlights that it is the previous work of the owner in
    planting the vineyard, hedging around it, and building a tower that makes the
    land productive before it is ever rented out to the husbandmen.

    In other words, the capitalist has sacrificed his own
    consumption in the present to invest in land and capital goods to improve the
    productivity of the land. This has created an opportunity for the husbandmen to
    be more productive by working on the owner’s land than they would be on their
    own, without the land or the capital goods the owner has provided.

    The owner then enters a voluntary agreement with the
    husbandmen whereby each party keeps part of what is produced. Both owner and
    husbandmen benefit from the agreement. The owner is entitled to the profits
    because he is the one who created the opportunity by sacrificing his own
    consumption in the past.

    The husbandmen are evil specifically because they act like
    Marxists and renege on the agreement. They kill the owner’s agents and even his
    son, hoping to seize all of the wealth for themselves.

    In verse 41, Jesus teaches that the owner will destroy the
    Marxists and rent the land to other husbandmen who will make him profits. The
    right of the owner to profits is affirmed, the idea that the workers are being
    exploited or should be able to take more than the owner has agreed to pay them
    is completely absent.

    Nowhere in any of these parables are socialist ideas
    advanced. On the contrary, God is consistently represented as a capitalist and
    his children judged by how profitable they are to Him.

    While the purpose of the parables is to teach a spiritual
    lesson, these are not the literary tools that an anti-capitalist author would
    employ. Jesus’ pro-capitalist bias couldn’t hit one over the head any harder.

  • fiddler

    Yes I recently see promotions on TV to start businesses in NY. The way to cure socialism in NY is for the producers to leave. If there is a shrinking tax base what can they do? Put a strangle hold on all remaining income? Or pass a law that wherever you move all your income has to be taxed back to NY. Or, forbid that you can move at all.

  • popseal

    Socialism is on the rise because so many people know they are incapable of living a self reliant life, they know they need a Nanny State. 11,000,000+ new Democrats from Mexico will only make the march into collectivist oblivion more difficult to reverse.

  • Ajohn

    Socialism is a philosophy of Failure, the creed of
    Ignorance, and the gospel of Envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
    Misery. – Winston Churchill.

  • Nabuquduriuzhur

    We haven’t had true capitalism in the nation since 1992.

    It’s ignored how ideas like “Free Trade” destroyed our economy. We went from first in industry to a distant fifth, with an estimated loss of 11 million primary manufacturing jobs from 1993 to 2008, an a loss of some 44 million more jobs that were directly dependent upon those 11 million.

    These were high paying jobs that provided the base income for the nation.

    Without that income, the governent and the public started financing everything with debt.

    We still have fools claiming it was good for the economy.

    In 1993-1995, the infrastructure was cut some ~80% in the nation.

    100,000 engineers, scientists, inspectors, and other federal employees that did things for the public were fired from 1993 to 1999, via executive order from Clinton and later a bill from the 103rd Congress. A program began in 1993 to put the unqualified into medium and high positions in government.

    With predicable results. We’ve never had a government that was more incompetent than now.

    Despite working for three different departments, due to some severe dishonesty by two agencies in 2003, I found myself out of a job. After that, I was turned down for 2150+ jobs and I finally gave up on the feds after being turned down more than 1500 simply because I was white and male.

    Despite being rated as GS-4 to GS-13 in 21 specialties ranging from biology to engineering. I’d get to the final 3 to 5 candidates and the job would typically go to a person who only had a high school diploma but was the right skin color or gender.

    Most of the government is now incompetent, because people who didn’t meet the qualifications were deliberately hired since 1993.

    They take bribes, determine which businesses should “win”, persecute some businesses, and support others. It’s a rare month that goes by that some scandal doesn’t happen, but the base problem of having an amateur government never gets fixed.

    People with skills are persona non grata in the government.

    And this is the government that has kept business down.

  • bleedinell

    Wonderful article, thank you.

  • Consider

    I am much amused by the homeopathic sociology being preached on these pages.
    To fight poverty help the rich, to fight violence make firearms accessible to all, to fight disease make healthcare unaffordable to most, to fight racism praise the slave owners, to protect the environment drill, dig and burn as much fossil fuels as you can, to ease unemployment make life miserable to the unemployed, to advance knowledge teach creationism and intelligent design…etc.
    The invisible hand will doubtlessly put the things right.

    • Skeptic7

      Democrats control the neighborhoods with the most poverty, the worst schools, the highest out of wedlock pregnancy rates, and the most dangerous neighborhoods.

      Democrats took a shining city, Detroit, and killed the goose laying the golden egg.

      Yes, allow the rich to lend out their money to grow businesses creating jobs. Yes, allow people, like the great-grandmother in Mississippi to own and use a gun to protect herself and her grandchildren against an armed intruder. She shot and killed the kid who put a shotgun to her back while she plead for her life.

      Fight racism with equal opportunity to succeed, raise self-esteem by getting people to work instead of living off the dole. Democrats want a dependent feral rabid population who when told their handouts will rampage on command.

      Democrats want to flood the US with 30 million new unskilled laborers – creating conditions so bad for employment that even more people will be forced to turn to government.

      What Democrats get aroused over is a single-payer health care system, so that the US ends up with headlines like these out of the UK.

      “60,000 euthanized without consent”
      “20,000 appointments cancelled due to doctors’ strike”
      “Breast cancer betrayal of older women: Only 1 in 7 over 70 receiving chemotherapy.”
      “Patients going blind on waiting list for eye surgery, doctors frustrated.”

      Democrats get aroused over this level of dysfunction.

      • Consider

        “Democrats control the neighborhoods with the most poverty, etc”..probably because people there see Republicans as their best friends. They can get advice about how they don’t work because they are lazy, how the wealth of most members from the Forbes list of richest Americans comes not from inheritance but hard work, and how all this is fine and just.

        • reader

          Did you ever pause and ask yourself, why is it that the entire Democrat Party brass fits your Forbes list bit to a t?

          • Consider

            They might be better at inheriting.
            But that is not an excuse for the system.

          • reader

            What in the world did you even try to say here? Since you’re incapable of explaining the obvious contradiction of terms, I will. Socialism is benefitting the RICH at the expense of the middle class, who the money to subsidize the political class is taken from. The poor get their crumbs – like free cell phones – at the expense of the middle class too. Its the middle class who is being screwed by the marxists. Marx despised it the worst, calling it petty bourgeoisie.

          • Consider

            You should not try to explain the meaning of other people’s thoughts since you are bad at this. Maybe you are better in basketball.
            All data show that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening in capitalism, while the midlle class is diminishing.
            If this is a good phenomenon, than so be it.

          • reader

            No, it’s not. It is the opposite. The greatest in numbers, influence and combined wealth middle class had been created in the United States before the Central Bank, the New Deal, the Social Security, Medicare and well before the Obamacare.

          • Consider

            The Central Bank, the New Deal, the Social Security, Medicare etc while successfull (in burying the USSR for instance) were called capitalism.
            After 2008 we learned that all this in fact has been socialism, all along.

          • reader

            Talk about the definition of terms. No, the New Deal is no capitalism, and Medicare did not bury the USSR. Marxism buried the USSR, which went bankrupt as soon as the oil market collapsed in the eighties.

          • Consider

            The system that included the New Deal and Medicare ,is once called capitalism, and at other instances socialism, to suit the necessities of the day.

          • reader

            Yes, it’s called statist propaganda – aimed at drones like you.

          • Consider

            So the article’s author had me in mind when he wrote the piece?

      • kernals

        Delaware gets 50 cents for every dollar it sends to the federal government. South Carolina gets 8 bucks

    • reader

      Apparently, you’re an idiot or a fanatic. The utopian ideology of sociopaths who like to call themselves social engineers is completely contradictory to rationale and experience, and yet they keep pushing it with truly religious ferver.

  • mattogilvie55

    Socialism is the forcible taking of one’s property (his/her money by taxes) for the sole purpose of giving it to another. Socialism requires the government to decide who is worthy of receiving said property and who must give up their property, a decision which is always made arbitrarily. That is theft, which is evil.
    Socialism allows the uncharitable to fool themselves into believing they are charitable by supporting sociamism. That is a lie, which is evil.
    Socialist theory relies on people coveting others’ goods, and rewards the covetous by not requiring them to earn it. That is envy and sloth, which are evil.
    Socialism reinforces the idea that all people, regardless of whether they earn it or not, are entitled to material wealth, and more specifically, to other people’s wealth. That is greed, which is evil.
    Socialism acts as the enabler of the sins of envy, sloth, and greed. That is scandal, which is evil.

  • Mark Musser

    The socialism we see today is also much different than the old Marxism that emphasized historical materialism, industrial utopia, state ownership of the means of production, etc., things which few leftists, if any, propagate today – all of which died with the fall of the Soviet Union. What we have today is a mixture of post-modernism and environmentalism with socialism, a compromise of sorts between Marxism and Capitalism with a green sustainable twist to it all, which brings us much closer to fascism as Jonah Goldberg emphasizes in his bestseller,” Liberal Fascism.”

  • Jon Wos

    Ayn Rand made this point more than 50 years ago!

    • kernals

      when the economy was doing very well thank you very much under big government

  • Tan

    Let’s take a look at why socialism is rising: 1. Antonio Gramsci was the one that started this “long march of the institutions.” Neo-Marxism is now the major weapon for neo-Communists. Penetrating the schools, universities, the media in Hollywood, our government, etc. That’s what their goal is, they said it, and are still doing it to this day. 2. Can we really say that we won the Cold War? It was already predicted by two Soviet defectors, Anatoliy Golitsyn and Jan Sejna, in the 1980s that the Soviet Union would collapse itself on purpose as part of a strategy to deceive the West into thinking that Russia was rejecting its evils and its ideology. All the Soviets did was change labels but not their character. So while the Neo-Marxists are infiltrating our society, Russia is still penetrating our intelligence and government agencies as proven in cases like Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, the Illegal Spy Ring in 2010, and perhaps Edward Snowdan himself was a Russian/Chinese agent. Look at people like Sergei Tretyakov “Comrade J” who was doing espionage in a post-cold war time.

    We are being attacked in two different places: one is by our own people who are part of US Marxist-Socialist organizations, and the second attack is coming from foreign powers who are our enemies from the cold war (who supposedly are our “allies”). Yet because we ignorantly believed in the saying that “communism is dead” and that “we won the cold war,” that gave the Neo-Marxists, Russia, China and others the opportunity to return to their strategy of subverting the US as we began to lower our guard.

    Very scary that Jan Sejna predicted that the US would suffer a economic crisis and would elect a progressive regime/progressive president, and I believe he said this in his book We Will Bury You quoting from a Czech Communist intelligence official by the name of Konstantin Katushev, which you can also find in the book And Reality Be Damned. Jan Sejna also predicted that Russia would find a way to separate the US and NATO.

    Perhaps socialism is also on the rise because of the fact that we are ignorant of our history (which is what the Marxists want for us).

  • keyster

    Earlier attempts at Marxism were done wrong.
    Every few decades it has to re-package itself to suit the times.
    The hope is maybe this time it’ll work.

    • Skeptic7

      Hahahaha, that’s what they always say. Marxist governments murdered 100 million people in the 20th century. The system fails everywhere, as in Venezuala where the army has been forced to take over the toilet paper factory to insure it’s continued production.

  • Skeptic7

    Capitalism is the philosophy of win-win. Marxism is lose-lose or win-lose.