Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Collectivisim – The End Goal is all the Same!Kelly Kohls
The dictionary definition1of socialism is a political system that requires collective or most often government ownership of both the economy (means of production) and the distribution of goods to the people. There is little to no private property or wealth for the masses or means to obtain such. Government leaders and those they deem worthy, a new government-defined “1%,” get rewarded with a larger share of economic production than the teeming masses. Along with a larger percentage of wealth, they obtain the yeoman’s share of power over those who are forced to rely up government for their very existence.
America had its first experiment with socialism, known as collectivism or “communism” according to Governor William Bradford, with the Pilgrims in the 1620s. The Pilgrims drafted the Mayflower Compact as an agreement among the religious travelers and the rest of travelers when friction broke out in the group after missing their intended destination and landing in the area of Cape Cod. It is considered our first form of government, but it was a failed experiment.
The compact forced all to work not only for themselves but also for their neighbors, with no private property but all land and goods were equally shared. Women had to provide for men who were not their husbands, preparing their meals and mending their clothes, while men had to work for all families as well as their own, even men who had no wives or children. The strong were disincentivized to work hard because they gained nothing, while the weak were encouraged to work less because they obtained the same regardless. The end result: production fell dramatically, starvation and its accompanying effects of disease and death flourished. As Bradford put it, the system of, “…taking away of property and bringing [it] into a commonwealth,” bred, “…confusion and discontent [and]… retarded much employment that would have been to [the settlers’] benefit and comfort.”2
As the little colony sat on the brink of extinction, the leaders devised a new plan. Each settler was given their own land to work – private property was established – and production increased to the point where there was more than enough to eat with leftovers to trade and enrich the colonists. Bradford recalled, “This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious.”3
In spite of the evidence throughout history that socialism and its fraternal twin communism – both forms of authoritarianism – result in poverty for the masses and death in the hundreds of millions for dissenters and anyone deemed unfit, many Democrats in the United States are pushing for socialism here as a means of equalizing the distribution of wealth and calling it “justice.” They would do well to remember the results of other socialist and communist regimes throughout history, including the last century. Prof. Rudolph Rummel, cited by Walter Williams, has researched and written extensively on genocide by government, which he terms democide. The most prolific killers were Mao, Hitler and Stalin – communists and socialists. Combined with other authoritarian leaders, the numbers of those murdered, according to Rummel, 262,000,000.4 The dead would not call this system “just.”
To quote Dr. Rummel, “It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth and prosperity. Hardly known, however, is that freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we must also add that power kills.”5