Mediaboss Marketing

Editor's note: Find a cited version of this column at http://www.vaildaily.com.

Several weeks ago on ABC's Sunday morning talk show "This Week," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told host George Stephanopoulos, "The democrats need a strong, bold, sharp-edged and common-sense economic agenda. That's what's been missing."

So I find it a bit ironic that seven months after losing the 2016 presidential election, Schumer feels the Democratic Party is still struggling to articulate a coherent message. Meanwhile, the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing of the party delivers a very clear message. Unfortunately for their constituency, it's about a failed ideology socialism.

Sanders and Warren are advocates of redistributing wealth; lax immigration rules, governmental intervention into health care, energy and business; and the acceptance that Washington should be the final arbiter of all problems.

Socialism has inherent defects

While socialism is antithetical to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, it tends to gain its strongest support among the young and those who are uninformed. On the surface, socialism sounds great; it has always sounded great and will continue to sound great within certain precincts. The only problem with socialism is that history exposes it as a bankrupt ideology.

But rather than describing socialism's failures tenet by tenet, the following apocryphal story illustrates socialism's inherent defects in an easy-to-understand way.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class. The class insisted that wealth redistribution, aka socialism, worked because then no one would be poor and no one would be rich a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, let's try an experiment." Henceforth, all grades would be averaged; everyone would receive the same grade, and no one would fail.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone received a B. The students who studied hard were upset but the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little now studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they too decided to study little. The second test average was a D.

Now no one was happy. When the third test rolled around, the class average was an F; and from that point forward, the scores never increased, as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings with the result that no one would study for the benefit of anyone else and the students all failed the class.

The professor then told them socialism as a form of government always fails because of human nature, i.e., when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes the rewards away, no one will try to succeed.

human nature is part of ideological equations

Similar to the aforementioned students, the far left consistently overlooks the fact that human nature is part of any ideological equation. They fail to understand that socialism has never and will never work because it's based on a premise that's inconsistent with human behavior.

When people work, they expect to be compensated commensurate with their effort and skill level. And capitalism does that more effectively than any economic system yet devised by man. Capitalism provides an incentive for people to achieve because they know their efforts will be rewarded.

Conversely, socialism is a disincentive to achievement because people also know their work is valued only collectively, rather than being valued individually.

Quote of the day: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston Churchill.

Butch Mazzuca, of Edwards, writes regularly for the Vail Daily. He can be reached at bmazz68@comcast.net.

Read more:
Vail Daily column: When it comes to socialism, will they ever learn? - Vail Daily News

CARACAS, VENEZUELA: Hillside slums are shown. The countrys oil industry, which makes up half of government revenues, fell 46.7 percent. (Photo by Kimberly White/Getty Images)

Most of us have heard the word socialism but might be hard pressed to define what it really means.

Merriam-Webster to the rescue. Their definition is as follows:

Definition of socialism

In other words put your faith in Uncle Sams hands because he knows better than anyone else whats good for you.

Im from the government and Im here to help you as the old saying goes. That would be nice if it worked in all cases.

In European countries workers are taking to the streets to protest the possibility of losing their 30-hour workweek and two months of paid vacation.

In Venezuela people are eating out of dumpsters and rioting in the streets as their socialist led government tries in vain to keep a disastrous economy afloat.

In the Philippines the bulk of their society works for the government that as we all know produces nothing.

When you produce nothing you also produce no income. Nothing good happens in this world until someone sells something.

Money has to be generated by someone.

The more dependent a society is on its governing body the more control that governing body has over society.

The VA is a good example of socialized medicine. How many veterans are dying because they cant get a timely appointment for healthcare?

Is that the group you want paying your hospital bills and determining your level of healthcare?

If single payer health insurance is such a good deal why dont we have single payer life insurance, car insurance, or home insurance?

Seems like a no brainer to me.

In fact why not a one size fits all policy? Anything you think should be covered by insurance is covered. Just submit your claim and the feds will sort it out for you and reimburse you accordingly.

Hail storm or heart attack its covered.

Youre no longer in good hands with Allstate. From now on youll be in good hands with Congress.

As you can see socialism is not a simple subject. What made America great is right from the very beginning they knew that one size fits all wouldnt work.

The Pilgrims tried it and nearly starved their first winter in the new world. Not everyone gets a trophy, not everyone is equal.

Were all born equal but after that all bets are off.

Margaret Thatcher is credited with three amazing quotes that sum up this entire train of thought.

She said, The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.

Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you arent.

I think shes right on all three. What do you think?

Comments below

See the article here:
What Part Of Socialism Do You Not Understand? - kmmsam

I am often amazed at how, more than two decades after the Cold War ended, people can still talk about capitalism and socialism as if they are legitimate competitors in the battle of ideas.

While this is evident in the West, it is especially nonsensical here in the Third World. Extreme poverty abounds, clearly, as a direct result of excessive government intervention in the economy, yet the excitement and colorfulness of socialism still captures the imagination of the masses. The idea that prosperity can be academized into existence is alluring!

The fact of the matter is, however, that there is no debate between these two fundamentally different concepts.

Whereas free market capitalism is an economic state of affairs, socialism is apolitical ideology. While capitalism does have many theories and ideas within the philosophy that developed around it, without any conscious intervention or development, it would still exist. Children, without knowing any of the ideas of capitalism, share and exchange for mutual benefit.

Socialism, on the other hand, is so foreign to human nature that it required philosophers and intellectuals to create it out of thin air. And hundreds of millions have had todie in the pursuit of this ideology. The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia is perhaps one of the most striking examples of this.

In just four years between1975and 1979 the Communist Party in Cambodia slaughtered up to two million people in an attempt to create a fundamentally new society. The regime even formulated the notion of Year Zero, where practically all Cambodian history, tradition, and culture had to be destroyed and the society effectively restarted in the socialist image. Anyone who the regime believed was potentially incompatible with their socialistic vision for Cambodia was summarily killed intellectuals, people who wore glasses, and generally anyone who was urbanized. Those whoescaped slaughterbecame New People (and the regime despised the new; it sought a return to Cambodias mystical agrarian past), who were effectively slaves. The regime said of these new people, To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss.

Now, try to think of a regime in history which implemented capitalism in the same way.

Augusto Pinochets regime in Chile is definitely not an instance of this. Suppression of socialism does not equal implementation of capitalism. The United States slaughter of Native Americans was not an instance of this, as that could more more easilybe ascribed to the socialistic mentality of control-based growth. In fact, I doubt either of these two oft-cited examples were done in the pursuit of capitalism. The South African Apartheid regime is also often cited, yet Apartheid leaders condemned the free market throughout the period of their rule.

Capitalism becomes implemented when government steps back, in the same way that lightis implemented onto a surface when an obstruction clears out of the way. Free market capitalism is the result of the mostly unconscious conduct of ordinary people which occurs without them being libertariansorconscious capitalists.

Socialism, on the other hand, needs to be implemented. Mind you, it can never work socialism has never achieved its purpose of equality and prosperity for all, whereas capitalism, which has no purpose, has consistently led to relative prosperity.

These two ways of thinking about the world are not legitimate, bona fidecompetitors in the battle of ideas. Capitalism won the battle of ideas when the first blood was spilled in the name of socialism.Just like there is no debate between rape and consensual sex, or a debate between drinking water or cyanide for your health, there is no debate between socialism and capitalism. And we shouldnt treat it like a debate.

This post was written by Martin van Staden.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian, the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, a co-founder of the RationalStandard.com, and the Southern African Academic Programs Director at Students For Liberty. The views expressed in his articles are his own and do not represent any of the aforementioned organizations.

Like Loading...

More:
There is No 'Debate' Between Socialism and Capitalism The Chief's Thoughts - Being Libertarian

I have followed a debate in your paper with interest. A. Abbott really needs to Google a few words, as his arguments seem to be based on incorrect interpretations of socialism and other forms of regime.

This letter relies heavily on excerpts from theories found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or co-operative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.

In the various countries A. Abbott mentioned in your paper of July 4, not one of them is a true socialist regime as there was no social ownership. There was also no democracy within those countries as they were ruled by evil dictators. I think the word he is seeking is totalitarianism, in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Evil dictators and fascists chose to seize control the means of production and to control everyone in their countries. Any dissenters were quickly disposed of, in not very nice ways.

There are examples of good social democrat countries in Scandinavia and Europe where ideology successfully supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Perhaps the egalitarian states would better demonstrate socialism than the ones erroneously touted as the models.

Mary-Ann de Kort

I have followed a debate in your paper with interest. A. Abbott really needs to Google a few words, as his arguments seem to be based on incorrect interpretations of socialism and other forms of regime.

This letter relies heavily on excerpts from theories found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or co-operative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.

In the various countries A. Abbott mentioned in your paper of July 4, not one of them is a true socialist regime as there was no social ownership. There was also no democracy within those countries as they were ruled by evil dictators. I think the word he is seeking is totalitarianism, in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Evil dictators and fascists chose to seize control the means of production and to control everyone in their countries. Any dissenters were quickly disposed of, in not very nice ways.

There are examples of good social democrat countries in Scandinavia and Europe where ideology successfully supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Perhaps the egalitarian states would better demonstrate socialism than the ones erroneously touted as the models.

Mary-Ann de Kort

Read more:
Totalitarian, not socialist - Gisborne Herald

You are here: Home Monthly Review Press OrganizeNorthCarolina.org reviews Michael Leibowitzs The Contradictions of Real Socialism

The Contradictions of Real Socialism: The Conductor and the Conducted 192 pp, $15.95 pbk, ISBN 9781583672563 By Michael A. Lebowitz

Reviewed by Russell Herman

The leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, 1922-1991) used the terms real socialism and actually existing socialism to distinguish their real experience from merely theoretical socialist ideas. Lebowitz asks how that system actually functioned, how it reproduced itself, and why it yield[ed] to capitalism without resistance from the working classes who were presumably its beneficiaries. (p. 7) Interesting questions. Especially to those of us who want to construct a more humane system than the capitalism that defeated the USSR.

Read the review at OrganizeNorthCarolina.org

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

Monthly Review Foundation. Tel: 212-691-2555 134 W. 29th Street, Suite 706, New York, NY 10001

2017 Monthly Review Foundation All Rights Reserved

Read the original:
OrganizeNorthCarolina.org reviews Michael Leibowitz's The Contradictions of Real Socialism - Monthly Review