Someone please explain this to me: The Democrats have a self-avowed, publicly declared socialist conducting an increasingly popular, neck-in-neck (in some states) campaign for the office of president of the United States.
How is it that “We the People” have become so unspeakably ignorant of facts?
Is socialist just another word for a liberal Democrat? I thought, “I know what I think socialism is, but what does the dictionary say it is?”
Socialism: 1) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; 2) A system of society or group living in which there is no private property; 3) A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state; 4) A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism …
Am I to believe that a huge group of millennials and Democrats are in favor of Marxism, government ownership, no private property and the means of production owned by the state?
Do millennials actually view socialism more favorably than capitalism?
Well, one survey taken at the end of January found that 43 percent of Americans under 30 had a favorable view of socialism. Less than a third of millennials had a favorable view of capitalism. Yet these self-same millennials live and thrive in a consumer-driven, on-demand society. They have immediate access at their fingertips to more knowledge, art, music and communication than the wealthiest oligarch (a very rich businessman with a great deal of political influence) just a few decades ago.
America is arguably the richest, most influential, most powerful nation in the world today. The basis for this (second only to the transcendent principles found in the Bible) is its economic system – capitalism – an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state. (America would be in even better shape absent our government’s misuse of funds.)
Compare it to any presently existing world economy. One might start with Russia, the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), or a national socialist movement called Nazism, or Maoist China, a socialist state in actuality; throw in Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Millions of people have died under the banners of socialism, and millions more were and still are impoverished by it.
Greece also comes to mind. It has seen a massive reduction in its standard of living after years of socialist government rule. Add in Portugal, Spain and, to a significant degree, France. All of these nations have suffered at the hands of socialist leaderships that have fundamentally undermined their general standard of living.
In the Americas, Venezuela and Argentina are two nations blessed with an incredible abundance of natural resources and wealth and, in the not too distant past, both were economically vibrant. They, too, are now suffering massive reductions in the standard of living of their people. As a matter of fact, these two countries are now held by many to represent the final two pillars of socialism in South America. (Suggestion: Search online for a list of socialist countries, and choose one you’d like to live in.)
So let’s cut to the chase. As I understand it, a large and growing segment of people in America today is saying, “We want the government to control every aspect of our lives, especially in the financial arena. We no longer want to have responsibility for our own lives.” Also, they resent, or object to, the fact that some people have used their skills, talents and abilities to provide for themselves and their families and improve or upgrade their lifestyles. But then again, we are talking about people who have had the benefit of living in a society where parents have provided everything for them, without their having to contribute anything to their own welfare.
Today, teens have private cell phones with an average monthly cost close to $100 (depending on the carrier), $150 sneakers and jeans costing $200. And what about allowances? According to Teenage Research Unlimited, “Teens spend around $103 a week. This adds up to a yearly total of $5,356. Just FYI, in 2004, teenagers between the ages of 12 and 19 spent over 169 billion dollars, which is 30 billion dollars more than Texas’ 2006 and 2007 biennium budget.” (Could that be because many teens have their own credit cards?)
The fact of the matter is, if you don’t have to earn a dollar, you probably don’t have much concern about where and how it is spent. And, of course, compassion makes you desire to see others have as much as you, so why not take it from “the haves” and give it to the “have nots,” especially since it is not coming out of your “have”? So what if the “have nots” are not doing anything to become “haves”? After all, your $600 cell phone didn’t cost you anything, so why shouldn’t your classmate or the “poor kid up the street” have one? You didn’t have to work for yours, so why should they?
So Bernie has the right idea: Let’s take if from the government or those “fat cats” on Wall Street – those “greedy rich dudes” from the big corporations – and give it to the “regular” folks. After all, I have all my stuff and I never worked, so why should they? This is America, right?
Could it be that Bernie and his followers are totally unaware of a concept articulated by someone who knew a little about our form of government (a republic, not a democracy)?
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” – Benjamin Franklin
Are the Bernie believers that people?