Tuesday, January 1, 2008
‘Why Keep Riding a Losing Horse?’
Progressivism piece by
NewMediaAlliance:
Ken Marrero
In US political discussions, there is currently a heated up Cold War going on between those who desire to move our country towards a Socialist foundation for our governance and those who desire to keep our Capitalist foundation. That struggle is clearly in evidence in the Presidential campaigns, especially of the top tier candidates.
Most illustrative of the Socialist side of the equation is Mrs. Clinton’s recent Christmas ad featuring her sitting in the midst of piles of packages to put under the Christmas tree, wrapping and labeling the gifts she plans to give to the American people. The first is Universal Health Care and the final one is Universal Pre-K.
The idea that such programs are gifts, of course, ignores the fact that gifts aren’t really free. They have to be paid for by someone. In the case of Mrs. Clinton’s gifts, that someone is going to be the American taxpayer. It must also be noted that it is most likely also going to be true that the vast majority of people paying for the gifts will not be realizing any benefit from the gift other than whatever blessings from the Scripture “It is more blessed to give than to receive” manage to apply to this particular giving.
The most important question in this discussion is a behind the scenes query. It’s easy to see why “we the people” respond to Mrs. Clinton’s promotion of a Socialist agenda. It appeals to the part of our human nature that thinks we’re going to be the ones to benefit from such largesse. So we vote for her because we think it will get something for us. But the real question is why do Mrs. Clinton and her associates support such an agenda?
The results of Socialism are plainly visible. It has always been and remains a dismal and glaringly obvious failure that blights any country and economy it touches, let alone any it controls. A simple examination of the history and fate of the former Soviet Union suffices to illustrate that point. If we add in Cuba it becomes even more clear. If we note that China’s recent rise in power comes not from adherence to Socialist principles but, quite the opposite, from the introduction of Capitalist principles, it should put to rest once and for all the idea that it is possible for Socialism to produce any significant gains or benefits for the masses it purports to support.
The superiority of Capitalism over Socialism is succinctly distilled in the following excerpt from the Country Study of Russia done by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress.
Private plots also played a role in the Soviet agricultural system. The government allotted small plots to individual farming households to produce food for their own use and for sale as an income supplement. Throughout the Soviet period, the productivity rates of private plots far exceeded their size. With only 3 percent of total sown area in the 1980s, they produced over a quarter of agricultural output.
A number of factors made the Soviet collectivized system inefficient throughout its history. Because farmers were paid the same wages regardless of productivity, there was no incentive to work harder and more efficiently. Administrators who were unaware of the needs and capabilities of the individual farms decided input allocation and output levels, and the high degree of subsidization eliminated incentives to adopt more efficient production methods. (emphasis added)
Even in the heyday of Soviet Socialism, the principles of Capitalism worked best and provided the most for Mother Russia. This is not an isolated incident or result. It holds true across the board and in every instance where Socialism is tried. This truth was quickly realized by the very people Socialism was intended to benefit. They rejected Socialism as a way of providing for the needs, dreams and futures of their family at every opportunity, preferring instead the hated and despised road to Capitalism. Those who today desire the gifts offered by American Socialists will quickly come to the same realization and will adopt the same anti-Socialist behavior that the residents of other Socialist utopias did for the same practical reason – it does not work.
Which brings us to the question posed at the beginning. If the Socialist model is notoriously inefficient; if it fails to produce the value it is touted as producing; if the people who should benefit the most from it soundly reject it at every opportunity once they become familiar with it and if it is replaced with our Capitalist model whenever possible, why in the name of rational thought do Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic leadership and an unfortunately rising number of people on the Right side of the political spectrum continue to promote it?
By all accounts Mrs. Clinton and the elite of the Democrats are intelligent people. They have access to the same historical information that the rest of us do. Perhaps even more so. They surely know that at the end of Socialism’s rainbow is a chamberpot and not a pot of gold. Thus, stripped to its bare essentials is the question, if Mrs. Clinton knows that Socialism is bad for the people she wants to lead, why is she so in favor of it? Why does she keep riding to win on a losing horse?
Thinking that perhaps the best answer to that question is yet another question “If Socialism is bad for the people, who then is it good for?” …
Ken Marrero
New Media Alliance Television ( http://www.nmatv.com )
New Media Alliance Blogs ( http://www.thenma.org/blogs )
http://www.therealitycheck.org
Ken Marrero is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
Posted by NewMediaAlliance: Ken Marrero on 1/1/08 at 10:01 AM
[Email Article To Someone.]
(
Permalink)
Print This Page
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
