Sometimes socialism seems reasonable.
Emphasis on “seems.”
Take natural resource socialism. Ores and oil are “just there in the ground” and “belong to everybody.” So it “just makes sense” that “the people” should “own” the mining and drilling and refining industries, and run these operations to share the profits to help “everybody,” not just a few.
The Mexican government bought into this back in 1938, when it nationalized the U.S.- and Dutch-based oil companies. Today, the industry is under-capitalized, its equipment old and inefficient. Mexico itself is a mess. The government is corrupt and the people far poorer than would have been the case had they not bought into the nationalization mania.
The cause of the problems should not be in dispute. “By cutting off Mexican oil exploration from foreign investment and foreign know-how,” Ryan McMaken writes in an interesting analysis, “the Mexican state has only succeeding in making the Mexican oil industry less efficient, and less capable of taking advantage of the natural resources in Mexico.”
Which is why the government has been making tentative “liberalization” moves, de-monopolizing Pemex, the government’s oil outfit.
Unfortunately, though the damage done by bad government policy and monopolistic privilege is everywhere to see, many people (especially intellectuals) in Mexico blame “neo-liberalism” and non-existent “free markets” for rising prices and the specter of economic collapse.
Once bitten by the natural resource socialism bug, it’s apparently easy to dismiss evidence. Or the common-sense notion that government over-reach has made the mess they now struggle with.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Bernie’s plan will SAVE MONEY through Government Efficiency!
Click here for high resolution image:
Because BIG BROTHER is okay as long as enough people vote for him!
CLICK BELOW for a high resolution version of this image:
SOCIALISM…
The childlike faith that a powerful, ever-growingGovernment couldn’t possibly pose a threat to freedom.
Click here for a high resolution version of the image:
Don’t worry…
Bernie only wants “the good kind of socialism.”
Click here for a high resolution version of this image:
The Pilgrims we were taught about in school deserve a Paul Harveyesque “Rest of the Story” treatment. Most students were not told about how they tried communism before they wised up, though I actually had a teacher who made a point of it.
Yes, initially, the “community” owned everything, and all worked together for the greater good and the Glory of God.
Of course, it was a disaster.
The commune plan sparked sloth, shirking, family quarrels and resentment — with men regarding their wives’ work for others a “kind of slavery.”
And then near-starvation.
The solution? Privatize! They allotted land, setting “corne every man for his owne perticuler.”*
That worked well, but they still had to endure a late Spring drought, and things looked bleak. Then, after prayers and expressions of humility (as Governor William Bradford explained**), the rain returned:
It came, without either wind, or thunder, or any violence, and by degreese in yt abundance, as that ye earth was thorowly wete and soked therwith. Which did so apparently revive & quicken ye decayed corne & other fruits, as was wonderfull to see, and made ye Indeans astonished to behold; and afterwards the Lord sent them shuch seasonable showers, with enterchange of faire warme weather, as, through his blessing, caused a fruitfull & liberall harvest, to their no small comforte and rejoycing. For which mercie (in time conveniente) they also sett aparte a day of thanksgiveing.
So the most obvious political lesson to be drawn from the Pilgrim experience got lost in stories of rain and corn and Indians and such.
But it’s worth noting that Bradford wrote his discussions of communism — and how very wrong Plato and his ilk were — in his primary text, while his talk of the drought was an afterthought in his mss., and appears as a footnote in the edition I’ve consulted.
Both*** Plymouth stories deserve to be told.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
*I wrote about this a few years ago, offering some of the juiciest quotations, in “Plymouth’s Great Reform.”
** Bradford’s History of Plimoth Plantation, available for free at Gutenberg.org.
***The traditional date for the first Thanksgiving is given a few years earlier, with Squanto showing up and helping them plant and all. However, Bradford’s memoirs do not use the term thanksgiving (or “thanks-giveing”) or even “thanks” in relation to the harvests of 1621 at Plymouth Colony. But there is talk of plenty of food, including that Thanksgiving specialty, the turkey:
And now begane to come in store of foule, as winter aproached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, &c. Besids they had aboute a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since harvest, Indean corne to yt proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largly of their plenty hear to their freinds in England, which were not fained, but true reports.
I have friends who call themselves anarchists. Their theory? Government is always merely an open conspiracy of some to live at the expense of others.
Republicanism, on the other hand, proposes that if we limit government, we can hone it down to the level where there is no conspiracy, and everything the government does can plausibly help everybody.
Not just a few insiders.
Socialism is the opposite notion. Socialists seek to grow government so far that it “naturally” serves everybody, not only the few. It’s all about “equality,” you see.
Here’s what we know for sure: socialism, when really tried, is so awful that it makes anarchy-as-chaos sound good.
The latest socialist horror is Venezuela, which is getting worse every day. Now hospitals place newborns in cardboard boxes. There are no other supplies.
But that’s not all. The special program for feeding everybody? It’s now mainly for feeding just those close to the government — precisely as my anarchist friends say all government is:
Six months after the creation of the Local Committees of Supply and Production (Clap) that is designed to “distribute food directly to the people,” the government has decided to change its approach by threatening those using the program.
The Venezuelan government announced that it will suspend delivery of food packages to those who criticize its policies.
Are socialist out to prove anarchists right?
I bet most of my readers still put some hope in limiting government to serve all. Venezuelan socialism demonstrates how badly the opposite idea is, showing us that serving everybody by total government just decays into the folks allied closely with government warring against everybody else . . . who starve in plain sight.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Questions Answered:
What is the difference between a republic and a socialist state?
What do anarchists think of government?
What happens when government tries to do everything for everybody?
The Next Question:
How do we convince well-meaning socialists that total government cannot work for the benefit of everybody? (Since the examples of the USSR, Communist China, and Venezuela haven’t worked so far.)
In Europe, some large programs (like “free” healthcare and college”) appear to work for some countries and are a complete disaster for other nations. In many southern European nations, citizens look on state provided healthcare with horror, and make every effort to insure that they don’t have to depend on that system.
American progressives are strangely incurious about what makes some systems work and other systems crash and burn. In many cases, the explanation is cultural and institutional. 
(As it happens, Scandinavians had a well-established culture of hard work and self reliance and social cohesion, which is what made the establishment of a large welfare state even possible. When the Scandinavians began their ambitious welfare programs, it was a point of honor among many to NOT USE IT. This attitude has been eroded over time).
The Scandinavian models also have had better success rates because they have focused on maintaining a VERY FREE business environment, with corporate taxes LOWER than are found in the US, and limits placed on unions (a practice that would be abhorrent to the average American progressive).
quickly become bloated, inefficient and corrupt. The government is currently $21 trillion in debt.Opponents of the progressive welfare state believe that considerable damage could be done to the American system (which has always been a powerhouse of innovation and expertise), and many people could be hurt.
We’ve watched Venezuela’s big-daddy socialism descend into dystopia:
“Venezuela brings back fedual [sic] serfdom to try to alleviate food shortages,” read one online headline. (Don’t laugh, that may be how we spell “feudal” someday.)
Still believing in magic . . . “Maduro ordered a 50 percent increase in the minimum wage last month,” informed the National Post, “but the latest studies show that salaries still fall far short of the amount needed to obtain basic household goods and food.”
Socialism has failed, again, and in doing so demonstrates something more than economic shortcomings. As the late President Ford warned, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have.”
The Venezuelan people have the right to recall the president enshrined in their constitution, a particularly popular right at present . . . but the Maduro dictatorship refuses to take prompt, lawful action to facilitate the recall.
Not to mention unjustly arresting citizens circulating the recall petition or telling high government ministers to fire any government worker who signs.
So much for the socialist revolution . . . now tyrannically blocking a real revolution.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
