NP Rank:
A Smart Girl's Take on America's Potential move to Socialism
Here is a concerned citizens take on America's potential move from Capitalism to Socialism.
By Kathryn Milliron, Staff Writer, Politisite.com and Iron Mill News. NowPublic Contributor PhotoGirl
I’ve heard a great deal of talk in the conservative realm about the liberals of the country trying very hard to push the US from being a capitalist country into being a socialist country. Many have been saying that our current president is himself a “socialist”.
Being your average Jane, I did not have a firm understanding of the differences between the two and the type of impact that change would have on the lives of the average citizens of our fair country. So I began to research. The more I researched, the angrier I became.
I began with a simple search for the terms capitalism and socialism.
According to Merriam-Webster.com, the definition of capitalism is:
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
On Merriam-Webster. com, the definition of socialism is:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Okay, so I now know the definitions. And so far I do not like what the definition of socialism has to offer. Where is the freedom that this country is so accustomed to?
Well, since I clearly I did not know about the implications of this “change” I decided to go back and see what our founding Fathers had to say in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. They did form this country after all, so they know what the US was intended to be.
The Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
So the Declaration states that we have the right to life. Hmm, I guess the pro-choice crowd has forgotten that line. They’ve tried to convince the country that a fetus is not a “life”. Well it’s moving, has a beating heart and can’t survive without nourishment. Isn’t that what most living creatures do?
The next right is liberty. But if the government is taking over banks, insurance and car companies with the idea of “bailing them out”, who is to say that one day that power won’t stretch out to include “taking over” the companies, small or large of those of us who don’t share the same values and ideals with them? It’s not such a far fetched idea. They’ve given themselves the authority to “fire” CEO’s of private companies. What’s next?
And soon they will be telling my how much of my money I have to fork over to those who don’t have what I have. And I don’t even make the proposed $250,000 a year. But it will happen. The definition and amount of income that one must make to be considered “wealthy” has been steadily shrinking in the minds of the Obama administration.
Then we have the right to pursue happiness. It certainly isn’t a guarantee. And it doesn’t say that it is our right to have our mortgage covered by the hard working citizens of the country, simply because we bought a house we knew ultimately that we could not afford. Nor does it say that we have the right to health care, welfare checks or the like. That is not a right guaranteed to us. Yes the preamble of the Constitution says that it is to promote the general Welfare, but the definition is as follows:
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
-
politisite
Columbia, South Carolina, United States
Recommendations (81)
-
albertacowpoke
Canada -
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
sara star
Halifax, NS, Canada -
tikun
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel -
amyjudd
Vancouver, Canada
-
158
St. Louis, Missouri, United States -
AlvarezGalloso
Miami, Florida, United States -
djermano
Somewherein, China -
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan










Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (33)
at 09:48 on April 8th, 2009
An interesting read, but we're so far away from actual socialism in the US, it's not even on the horizon.
(i.e. if you were to pluck the liberal politicians of the US government out of Washington and drop them into London, they'd be Tories)
at 10:00 on April 8th, 2009
Thanks Jordan This article is about America and the constitution. The standard by the writer is based upon the founding fathers in America and NOT what a socialist would be in another country. Too me it looks like Kathy is dealing with the slipping that is occurring rapidly by business take overs and the like. I thought her article would be a good discussion piece for NP readers. Thanks for your insightful comments and recommendation. Whether one agrees with the content there is little doubt that the writer has a flare for communicating her points.
at 10:28 on April 8th, 2009
America isn't becoming a socialist country nor is it likely to any time in the near future. It was the repub President Bush who first took action to prop-up the failing free market system, bailing out his Wall St. chums. But even this intervention can't be considered to be a turn to socialism. The current financial crisis was created by those "pure capitalist corps" at the pinnacle of the free market system who were more concerned by greed than what was the correct business practice. In a true capitalist system these failing corps would have been allowed to go bankrupt but Bush decided otherwise.
Basically, this post is based on nonsense!
at 13:45 on April 8th, 2009
Actually, this post is based on fact and extensive research. Did you actually read the definition of socialism?
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".
If you have any doubt that our President does indeed have at least democrat socialist leanings, then you should check out the "Where We Stand" section of the Democratic Socialists of America site. Redistribution of wealth, nationalization of major industry, reducing spending for national security, etc. Sounds like our President to me. But I'll let you read the DSA site for yourself because I can keep going on with other DS beliefs.
The current financial problems that the US is experiencing because of the toppling of the sub-prime mortgage market actually have it's roots with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Carter administration) He was a democrat right? It was intensified by the Clinton administration who pressured Fannie Mae to begin allowing mortgages for people who didn't have good enough credit to qualify for traditional mortgages (Subprime loans). Hey he's a democrat too!
Now, I was not exactly thrilled with some of the decisions that President Bush made either. I believe that the major companies should be allowed to go bankrupt. And the polls at the time clearly showed that most Americans were against his bailout plan. His bailout plan was $700 billion, and didn't work. So then what gives our current Congress and President the idea to try it again? Maybe the nationalization of the corporations they are bailing out?
Sounds like more than a little "greed" going on with our Congress and President in Washington as well.
So I hope you will do a little research and learn a little more about what is actually going on so that the facts don't sound like nonsense anymore.
at 05:56 on April 9th, 2009
While it is pretty much an established fact that Obama has socialistic beliefs and has been taking measures that might be perceived as being socialistic, I don't think his agenda is actually constructed as reflected in the definition given by Merriam-Webster or as described in the previous post.
While it is true, that the Obama administration is obviously instituting some government control over several corporate entities under his (albeit flawed) recovery plan, this is perceived by the adminisration under our current economic system as a necessary step given the bailout funding invested. In theory, this might be considered a necessary rational approach, given the amount of public investment of public resources but is effectually a feeble attempt at oversight to guarantee a return, or at a minimum... repayment on the investment. That being said, in reality.. the Obama administration's Recovery Plan is flawed and will not work due to the enormous governmental/ corporate corruption that exists within our present system of a constitutionally unlawful corpocracy. This does nothing more than contribute further to the constituionally illegal oligarchy that is currenty in place today. As the old saying goes, "money goes to money" and the house of the elite money-masters are determined... not to lose. The house never does.
If our economic system was constitutionally sound as intended under Article 1 of the US Constitution and the control did not lie in the hands of private banker/businessmen, we would not be in this cesspool today.
Before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, America was debt free and a dollar was worth a dollar because our nations' economy was controled by the US Government (we the people). Since the power to print/coin money was illegally transferred to these greedy businessmen, we have seen our currency devalued by 97% over the years up to the present day, causing a comparitive value of only .03. That's Three Cents Folks.
The problems we face today are not the "root" stemming from the 1977 CRA or the result of the sub-prime mortgage market as suggested in the above post. Those initiatives and policies are but a symptom of a long-line of failed attempts to try and fix a flawed fractional debt/money sytstem created by the bankers.
The real soloutions are to repeal the Federal Reserve Act as well re-visit the reasons behind the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution and take effective measures to also repeal it. A strong Manufactuing Base needs needs also to be re-created and/or returned from overseas allowing us to produce our own products to sell, thereby creating true-wealth. Lastly, the Internal Revenue Service, (also authorized in 1913 in concert with the Federal Reserve Act,) should be abolished since it was created mainly as a vehicle to tax the public in order to pay back the debt (with interest) to the private bankers.
There is also another problem associated with the abovementioned problems that is due to systemic brainwashing over the past century by the dumbing-down of the public regarding our current money system as a viable means of exchange. The public has been conditioned to believe that our current dollar, has value as currency and doesn't realize that the current dollar circulated by the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve, is nothing but a Note, having debt attached to it with each transaction. The public would be wise to educate themselves further in order to understand what needs to be done in order to return America to a true-value based economy.
Only through re-educating the public to start the process of repealling these amendments and reestablishing a strong manufacturing base, can we restore a stable economy and true-value to our currency. No simulus package or recovery type plan presently proposed will bring our economy back. By continuing with further bailouts of these traitorious corporate elites where much of it is going to companies based in foreign countries, our dollar remains the bait, and we.. the fish...where the banker is the fisherman. It is a never ending cycle going nowhere but in circles. Where has all the bailout money gone??? The fisherman is calling in HIS chips.. reeling it in... and in the end, robbing us of our all our common-wealth. It is just that now, our economic system has finally come full-circle and the line has consenquently reached the end of the reel.
at 12:47 on April 9th, 2009
If you want to understand what socialism is, I suggest that you read the major works of Karl Marx and not just a very narrow definition. There are no true socialist countries and our country will never become one. But we do need some major policy changes.
From the beginning of the repub Bush term to its end, I lost more than 50% in value of my investments. At the beginning of the Bush term I could afford proper health care but by its end I couldn't without "selling something." I have sold my second house in the mountains. I have sold my second car. I have sold both my RV and boat. I only have my small house and rather old car left. We are unlikely to be made homeless but we can no longer afford to go out. If any one could more of my money away, it was Bush.
Bush spent more money on wars than the entire cost of the World War II and was over in five years.
Obama favors policies which will benefit all unlike under the repub Bush when only a select minority benefited. I'm a "switcher" until I voted for Obama, I have only never voted repub.
at 15:58 on April 8th, 2009
America isn't a socialist country, but what do you call the police force, and education? That is not privatized, and is available to all through taxes. Sounds semi-socialist to me.
at 17:09 on April 8th, 2009
First the party who has wall street as their Chums would be the Democratic party. The top recipients of Bank and Wall Street monies would be Sen. Dodd, Rep Barney Frank, and Barack Obama. AIG was a major contributor to each. Each of these men our influential in the banking problem.
One only needs to read Obama's books to see his agenda for America, He did not hide it he made it clear that he surrounded himself with Socialists, Marxists, and anti-government activists, He framed his agenda for America appear desirable to to average American.
Many folks are taking this article as an attack on Obama. The article takes issue with any of our representatives Bush, Obama, and Congress who have embraced bailouts and government takeovers. From where I stand The current administration asking for far reaching executive powers to control publicly held companies by making prior contractual agreements null and void. This action violates the very fabric of the 10 Amendment.
If America is to remain a Constitutional Republic it must not give the executive branch far reach powers that can set compensation and force companies to take government money. Is the Federal Government becoming a wing of organized crime? This writer took issue with the Bush administration on these issues as well. Obama promised change but that change was not communicated as taking what Bush did with nationalizing the Banks and reaching to control privately held companies. If one considers the constitutional attack as non-sense one has not been watching the day to day dismantling of America into a welfare state. A quick look at the history of now socialist countries show the slow transfer of privately held entities to government by using crises as the catalyst to move a socialist agenda.
If one uses George Bush inherited debt argument, wouldn't it be appropriate to stop spending and READ the Bills before voting yes. The CBO relates with the current spending that Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half in his first term. Saying so tot he American people is pure nonSence. I fact, the CBO (run by Democrats) says that the deficit will go up by over 10 trillion dollars by 2018. The stimulus will have very little impact on the American poor. In fact most poor folks will never see a stimulus dollar in their own hands. The stimulus is a ploy to grow the government where most of the funds will be spent. Larger government is also nonsense as the government can't even manage Social security and Medicare. The Government know how to do two things well; Borrow money and make promises they are unable to keep.
See Also
Socialist Party Platform
Democratic Party Platform
Republican Party Platform
at 12:19 on April 8th, 2009
Interesting opinion piece; as I don't live in the US I don't know enough about the day to day life to really comment, but an interesting read.
at 13:51 on April 8th, 2009
I highly recommend reading The Undiscovered Self by C. G. Jung. I re-read this after twenty years when the election was heating up and the words socialism were being thrown around.It was hard to not buy a hundred copies and pass them around .
Both the dictator State and denominational religion lay quite particular emphasis on the idea of community. This is the basic ideal of “communism,” and it is thrust down the throats of the people so much that it has the exact opposite of the desired effect: it inspires divisive mistrust.
Wherever justice is uncertain and police spying and terror are at work, human beings fall into isolation, which, of course, is the aim and purpose of the dictator State, since it is based on the greatest possible accumulation of depotentiated social units.
If you read this book you will see our government in a different way.
at 10:22 on July 21st, 2009
I think that it is important, when discussing the writings of proponents of either benign socialism or benign capitalism, to consider them as being distinct from "dictator state", or "socialist dictatorship".
Many a "dictator state" has forced it's people to chafe under a type of rule that it self-describes as capitalism, when in fact it is either shadow or overt fascism. Similarly, many of the same kinds of "dictator states" have masqueraded as benign socialism, when communism would have been the only reasonable label that an unbiased observer could have applied.
The problem with either-or labels is that often neither applies. It's another case of an answer presumed within the question.
at 15:23 on April 8th, 2009
Democrats should come up with a few alarmist labels for the deregulatory Supply-Side Repubs who created this Depression Economy, to counterbalance the juvenile whines of 'Socialists!' 'Communists!'
On second thought, just let them expose themselves for what they are.
at 16:10 on April 8th, 2009
The Undiscovered Self by Carl Jung
" All mass movements , as one might expect, slip with the greatest ease down an inclined plane represented by large numbers. Where the many are there is security; what the many believe must of course be true; what the many want must be worth striving for, and necessary, and therefore good. In the clamor of the many there lies the power to snatch wish-fulfilments by force; sweetest of all, however, is that gentle and painless slipping back into the kingdom of childhood, into the paradise or parental care, into happy-go-luckiness and irresponsibility. All the thinking and looking after are done from the top; to all questions there is an answer; and for all needs the necessary provision is made. The infantile state of the mass man is so unrealistic that he never thinks to ask who is paying for their paradise. The balancing of accounts is left to a higher political or social authority, which welcomes the task, for ITS POWER IS THEREBY INCREASED; and the more power it has, the weaker and more helpless the individual becomes.
at 16:38 on April 8th, 2009
Thanks for your insightful comments. Carl Jung one of my favorite writers
at 16:42 on April 8th, 2009
Believe me The Democrats have a thesaurus of names for supply side trickle down economics
at 16:39 on April 8th, 2009
Very interesting read! Thanks!
at 16:43 on April 8th, 2009
Rhonda,
Kathy Thanks your for your comment. I am sure she will thank you herself after she is finsihed teaching her students
at 18:26 on April 8th, 2009
Thanks Rhonda. I'm glad you found it interesting.
at 16:52 on April 8th, 2009
An excellent article, and without bashing from the left or the right, it should be looked at as food for thought. It seems to me that the left constantly goes on the defensive instead of discussing certain issues. At this point, I think the jury is out on the new Administration. Having said that, I think it would be wise for all to carefully watch what agenda is being pushed under the guise of stimulus and how many more CEOs are replaced.
I should also point out that Obamas TARP 2, worth 1 Trillion with interest was passed without Senators even reading it. That should give all a nudge to show some interest in what is happening.
Bush has been gone for 79 days and lots has been changed by the new administration. To this end Obama now owns the economy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pointing the finger at previous administrations, whether it be Carter, Clinton or Bush is not helpful. It is now Obama.s to deal with.
at 18:53 on April 8th, 2009
I agree with your comments Esta. But I think wise government is a contradiction in terms lol
at 05:51 on April 9th, 2009
I do not think that the US has to worry about Socialism, it is so much closer to Feudalism, it would take a Russian or French Revolution of sorts in order to change the USA to Socialism. Most America are way to paranoid and miss informed about the Socialist Concept to even conceder embracing such Ideas. Just hot air talk and paranoia in my opinion.
at 22:19 on April 8th, 2009
Politics that has speeches Bleeding heart conservative political correctness and to a large exstent people will bellieve that there not anatomicaly correct and would choose to make the other bleed before have to.
at 03:48 on April 9th, 2009
The capitalist failure is not because of the success of socialism. It failed on its own merits of greed, and its loathing demand that every citizen need support it. They created the Military Establishment to endow it's ideals upon a governmental system that contradicts its own value and purpose. Freedom, and Liberty are held in the eyes of the beholder....not through force by the crosshairs in their guns... In fact Militaries are Conservative Organs of Social control, which can only be supported by people with less power. We should look at the Bush administration as the Military Administration.....actually the Socialist Agenda itself. It is amazing to me when people say Democrats are more Socialist inclined than the Republicans,, but the Republicans are more Militaristic....which holds a closer association to the ideals of Socialism.. 911 caused this economic crisis.....It was not the Mortgage Crisis. Point blank....these bad loans have always been repackaged and sold, in a sort of Bankers Club American United States Organization. Bankers were always willing to help each other out. But 911 changed that. Why because it was an assault on the Banking Establishment itself... They attacked NYC, Wall Street, and killed thousands of people. We could say that Enron was one of the major domino's that triggered 911 into action........because this is where the greed took hold of the capitolist system, and those in position of power wanted payback for the collapse.. We all know Enron had deals going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan to route an Oil pipeline through the region.....and when the chips began falling.....the war was on....911 was engineered... We know this is more than a mortage crisis, because evidence proves 911 was an inside job. This killed the Bankers Club...and now the entire financial system distrusts. They know Bush did it, and they have no power to bring him to justice.. Obama refuses to indict....because he is boxed in someway, from pursuing the truth...So he keeps pushing their flawed coverup. The US is/has been a Socialist System from the buildup of the military, which 911 prompted... The spending done on that because of the lies, and really the presense of the military when it was times of peace, proved how controlling they have always been. Looking at the US still in Japan after all these years.....is all the proof you need..to show America is not about freedom, but about controlling.... Actually the Constitution is a fraud, that people stand behind to promote their Socialist form of agenda. There are many different types of agendas, and Socialism need not be the same...The US is clearly using the Militaristic Brand....and if you people think you have a genuine say about that......then keep dreaming that America is the beacon to the world.
Rev. Jermano
at 12:39 on April 9th, 2009
"The capitalist failure is not because of the success of socialism. It failed on its own merits of greed,"
YES.
Actually, we have socialism for corporations who have "socialized risk", while the rewards, the riches and power, are "privatized", reserved for the corporations alone.
at 14:40 on April 9th, 2009
Paschen what a projection you have for Americans! You have no idea how many highly educated, ethical and value driven citizens make this country run. I suggest you read a primer of information about mass mind and stop saying unkind things for people who might save your life someday. The Undiscovered Self by Carl Jung. Most people are working hard and doing the right thing and do not have time to point fingers and do the blame game. Failure is happening everywhere. It is not just Americans . To blame what is happening on the Bush Administration is proof someone does not know history at all for the last 16 Years.
My Dr. was Muslim. He said he was amazed to get to know the real Americans not on t v and in politics. Proof that one at a time of decent honest people getting to know each other will change the world and not this name calling crap.
at 17:02 on April 9th, 2009
Well said Queen's Heart. As a Canadian I have travelled in 43 States. I found most Americans to be friendly and decent people, always willing to lend a hand. Most of the time I was accepted as one of your own, even in Texas. How much better can it get :)
at 20:27 on April 25th, 2009
You poor naive fools...you who think that this country is not going the way of total socialism. This county will become a socialist country and all of you will wonder what happened. Socialism is only a small step away from communism.WAKE UP PEOPLE!! You are hiding your heads in the sand.
at 10:19 on May 2nd, 2009
This article was clearly written with the full intent of arguing against socialism, rather than ACTUALLY examining both systems in depth and making a balanced decision about which system is superior.
The author's understanding of socialism is vague and loose. Her main objection to Socialism, is the dissolution of private property. It's a fair concern, but let me prompt this question to you.
How many of us ACTUALLY own private property? Did you know that (according to the 2000 census) only a little less than 50% of families in the United States rent their homes? And of the nearly half who actually do own their homes, only 40% of this group has paid off their mortgage, making them TRUE homeowners. Do the math, only about 20% of American families actually own property.
I'd like to further point out, that socialism is not a system where all property is owned by the government. It is a system where all property is owned by the people, because the government itself is made up of the people, rather than a group of professional politicians funded by major corporations, like the system we have now. We are no longer living in a true democracy. We are living in a plutocracy with some democratic properties, where the major corporations control everything, and party politics are used simply as a form of distraction.
Socialism is in the eye of the beholder, so if you want to accuse President Obama of pushing a socialist agenda, by all means, do it, but make sure you understand what you are accusing him of before speak.
It is possible for socialism to exist in harmony with the rights we are guaranteed in the constitution. Do your research.
at 18:27 on May 2nd, 2009
I might also add Marco Polo that the lands taken in early America were stolen, by the early major corporate interests.. The US bought land from France the Louisiana Purchase...land conquered and stolen. Buying stolen land, is not legitimate......and most families who claim they own land out west....during the pioneer days....took such land without real authorization except through the authority of guns, force, and intimidation....against Native Americans.
The black slave trade was one of the early major corporate interests, that used slave labor for over 100 years of American history....building the very defunct system that still revolves around the same military control strangle hold it has on the population....per the reason that less than 50% own property..
Obama is not socialism, Obama comes from the same cloth of militaristic american culture. Guns rule his belligerence, and arrogance....with a smile...and a handshake....the skilled liar.
Actually the ponzi scheme is; we are all dependent upon each other. We all seek wealth from each and different groups called corporations. It is how we use the resources that do benefit to our society that is more real to the human condition, than the greed from false property appraisals, and the baseless claims of ownership the Private Sector enforces with its militaristic threats.
Rev. Jermano
at 07:59 on July 10th, 2009
A very good article.Thanks.