The two fundamental pillars of socialism are elimination of private property and equalization of wealth. Democrats are having a love affair with the prospect of socialism in the United States. I don’t believe they’ve thought seriously about the consequences of the two fundamental pillars of socialism. Freedom is not at all consistent with the elimination of private property and the equalization of wealth cannot be achieved without force by government.
But it all sounds great, huh? The Dems don’t really believe it. They’re just drawn to the enormous power of big government that will be required to enforce the two fundamental pillars of socialism.
Nobody will have any stuff they can call their own because everything will either be owned in common or owned by the government. Equalization of wealth cannot happen any other way. Nobody can increase their net worth by ingenuity, enterprise and hard work because everyone is to be equal.
Anyone who happens to accumulate a personal surplus by his labor will have it striped away and given to others who did nothing to earn it. Anyone who happens to have a shortage of wealth due to his own sloth will have it made up by taking from others and given to the slacker.
What a wonderful system. No jealously will exist because no one has any more than anyone else. Those who get without giving value in return will be happy with the imposition of socialism. But that already exists in the form of welfare. Are those people really happy? Does anyone believe they are?
Those who have the fruits of their labor taken from them and given to those who did nothing to earn it will be furious. Rancor and discord will blanket the land. Violence will be likely. That’s why socialism always requires a police state to force the productive workers to “spread the wealth around,” as Obama said.
The recipients of the largess of others…Oh,wait. “Largess” is the wrong word. That word connotes benevolent giving from one person to another. The transfers of wealth to equalize everyone under socialism are not done voluntary out of a spirit of generosity. It’s taking by force of law from one person or group to give to another person or group.
This has two consequences that do not lend themselves to anyone’s happiness. First, the one whose property is taken is resentful. The one who is given property he or she did not earn comes to think of it as a legal entitlement and not as a gift from a benevolent donor. The resentment on the part of the donor is matched by equal resentment on the part of the donee. In short, socialism is a prescription for everyone to be angry at everyone else.
Socialism does not make everyone happily equal. It makes everyone equally miserable. It isn’t even necessary to look at Venezuela or Cuba to see the truth of this proposition.
Socialism and liberalism have much in common. Both are resentment and a demand for power disguised as compassion.