Britannica defines socialism as a “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.” It goes on to say “everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.”
Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”. Ok, so right now the government doesn’t technically “own” the production and distribution of goods, but perhaps by directly taking money from the people it indirectly controls production and distribution.
With recent elections the fear and concern over socialism spreading in the U.S. has been blasted across television screens. What a joke. America has been sliding towards a socialist state for over a century as the government has expanded and created “programs” for societal benefit.
It was President Lincoln who first initiated a temporary income tax that lasted ten years to pay for the civil war. There were multiple other stabs at establishing an income tax, but it was President Woodrow Wilson who ushered in a permanent income tax that has dogged everyone since. Thus began taking from some to give to others, the wealth redistribution.
Since that time the government has been using more wealth redistribution to seize control over American lives. President Franklin Roosevelt thought it would be dandy to take money from Americans and decide how to redistribute it for their retirement, or outright take it if the person died before eligible to receive it. While he was at it, he also decided the government should provide housing to everyone. To ensure food was “divided as fairly as possible”, he started the food program.
President Johnson just expanded the wealth redistribution by feeding people and extending government control into education and more housing. Not believing that was enough he also managed to get the government to redistribute money for the health care sector and how care would be doled out. President Carter ensured the population would be indoctrinated on this socialist agenda by creating the Department of Education.
This redistribution of wealth has sucked the life out of the average American’s ability to improve their lives because the government has decided how their money would be spent. No, it’s not direct government ownership, but it is certainly public control over the use of resources, and how they are distributed.
Housing has just continued to be a target for government control. Section 8 is intended to provide monetary assistance for housing to low income and other individuals. However, now that subsidy can be used to buy the house for the individual. There is some thought that property taxes remove full home ownership rights because if not paid the government can seize the house. Equity theft of a home by the government would seem to most as illegal, yet persists as an unresolved issue. In spite of some tantrums complicating the issue, the government is still trying to control the housing market.
Perhaps the biggest affront on housing right now is the deceitful propaganda regarding “affordable housing”. For most people in the trenches, they understand that these cracker box housing units from yesteryear are bought up by corporations for investments. And the government knows it. It really is a fulfillment of Agenda 21 and 2030, and has been driven by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Many of the points made in this WEF video are seen happening in local communities today.
While the government does control Medicare and Medicaid, it also controls how private insurance is administered. Since the takeover of healthcare, costs have risen dramatically and access is more difficult, which is a dynamic of socialism.
Rather than a strict definition of socialism, maybe a more generalized definition could include governments taking “control of people’s property—whether by fully nationalizing businesses, mandating what and how much a company must produce, or seizing and distributing their products”. Certainly, the government continues efforts to dictate housing markets and has seized how healthcare is delivered. It may be that the traditional definition of socialism is being modified for a more covert implementation, and in some cases, intermixed with capitalism, much of what has happend in other countries. Then there is also the current slew of public-private partnerships, another socialistic sleight of hand. Why is the White House even discussing socialism?
There really isn’t any area now in which the government does not have a stranglehold, right down to what we eat.
In return, we have an emerging society that wants that government control to expand and supports the idea that socialism is a good model, there is no reason anyone should be surprised. As money runs out for all of these socialistic programs, the move is also on to take more money from those who are wealthier. They fail to see that it is the taking of money from others for control that has caused the problem of needing to take more. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.”
As long as the government continues to have control over these multiple sectors, the march towards a full socialistic state will continue. It is just being integrated in a way that is more difficult to recognize, but socialism may already be here.
Leave a Reply