Manifesto of the Democratic Socialists of America
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez call themselves Socialists. When pressed about the famine, starvation, suffering, misery, and death that Socialism wrought in the 20th Century, which was vastly worse than anything that ever before befell mankind in human history, Bernie and AOC say they are different because they are “Democratic Socialists.”
I can appreciate the New Socialists adding the word 'Democratic' to their name to distance themselves from the Socialists who murdered 100 million people. But I have been studying the Manifesto of the Democratic Socialists of America. Here is what the Democratic Socialists say they want:
"A world free from capitalism" "We reject private profit" "Eradicate the sources of inequality"
"Eliminate Free Enterprise and private charity" "Equalize wealth and income" "State ownership of what is now Private Property"
"State ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations" "State ownership [Communism] and/or direct control [Fascism] of the economic resources of society" "State control over all private resources, including all land, insurance, credit, raw materials, manufacturing infrastructure, and all existing financial institutions"
"Global government across national boundaries to ensure that wages, working conditions, environmental standards and social rights are the same worldwide" "Massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor" "Eliminate Religion, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--the belief in an invisible being in the sky."
NOW, you tell me how this is different from what Socialists and Communists have always wanted?
Standard Definition of Socialism
The standard definition of Socialism has long been: “Government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, services, and jobs; central planning collectivism.”
Any honest Democratic Socialist will admit the ultimate aim of Democratic Socialism is “to destroy Capitalism.” Ugo Okere, a Democratic Socialist running for office in Chicago, has even bigger plans for Democratic Socialism: “To control of every single facet of our lives.”
Venezuela Has Been Ruined by Democratic Socialism
“Socialism was supposed to provide everything for us,” says a man on the street in Venezuela. Instead, starving girls as young as 14 line the streets, selling their bodies for seven dollars. Women of all ages choose prostitution to make enough money to escape the country. Even heterosexual men sell themselves on the gay market because they are starving.
There is no need to guess if Democratic Socialism works. Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America only 20 years ago. That’s when they practiced Capitalism. Then they voted for Democratic Socialism and Hugo Chavez, the darling of the American Left, took over.
Today there is no food on shelves; very little water; no gas available in an oil-rich country; no toilet paper. The proud people of Venezuela are eating out of dumpsters and garbage cans. One Venezuelan refugee says, "It's like the apocalypse. No food. No medicine."
Inside Venezuela, health care has all but dissolved. 55% of the healthcare professionals – doctors, nurses, and others – have left the country; 43% of medical facilities are abandoned. There is a resurgence of illnesses that were eradicated decades ago. Hundreds have died from measles and diphtheria; 400,000 Venezuelans have malaria; 10,000 have tuberculosis—all because of Democratic Socialism.
There is a human catastrophe in Venezuela. The country now resembles a war zone. Children are dying of hunger and disease. Suicide rates have skyrocketed, even among children. The levels of crime and violence are described as something akin to a horror movie. Their lives have been ripped apart by Democratic Socialism.
Jesus Was No Socialist
Let us disabuse those with the blasphemous notion that Jesus was a Socialist. All of the leading lights of Socialism have been Anti-Christian Atheists. It was created as a replacement worldview for Christianity.
Jesus urged His followers to personally do all they are able for their neighbors—with an emphasis on providing not only the aid but also the message of Christianity. This is the basis of Christian Charity—the word means love.
Jesus never said that governments should take your possessions and give them to someone else. Charity is the work of God; government is the work of Caesar.
The New Testament commands Christians to care for the poor, particularly widows and orphans; to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter those without shelter, visit the sick and the prisoner AND tell them the GOOD NEWS—the GOSPEL.
That is Christian Charity and Christians have done an incredible job of it for nearly 2000 years. But nowhere in the Bible do you see it commanded that this be done by a State through coercive confiscation of your private property.
There are 100 places where the Bible talks about the poor but not once is any government involvement mentioned ever. What government welfare is is counterfeit Christian Charity: it mimics Christian Charity except it leaves out the most important part—the Good News; the Gospel, which it has made “illegal.”
One Trillion Dollars spent each year for the redistribution of wealth under a demonic scheme that makes the Gospel against the law. If that trillion dollars remained in our pockets that could be one trillion dollars of Christian Charity that INCLUDES the message of Jesus—that is truly 'inclusive.'
Instead of having a client dependent on the government teet for life perhaps the REAL problems underlying the incapability to take care of oneself in regard to physical needs—often a symptom of a spiritual disease—could be healed.
Why Would a Silicon Valley Billionaire Want Socialism?
Why would the richest men in the world favor Socialism? It seems counterintuitive to think the rich would want to share the world’s wealth. As explained by Gary Allen:
“If one understands that Socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting Socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but of the economic elite.”
Some Silly Souls Do Not Seem to Grasp that Socialism and Communism are Sisters
“Central to the meaning of Socialism is common ownership of all property. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. Socialism would entail an end to buying, selling, and money. As far as we are concerned, Socialism and Communism are exact synonyms.” ~ The Socialist Party of Great Britain
Socialism Ends in Slavery: Totalitarianism
Socialism created the Totalitarian State, brought back slavery, produced government-created famines and poverty of enormous proportions, and executed tens of millions of innocent human beings as a result of a false intellectual doctrine with no individual rights, no incentive to work, no method to create commonweal, no rational way to allocate resources. Still, our schools have convinced our youth that Socialism is as good as the Economic Freedom that has enabled them to live in incredible luxury, in a country to which hundreds of millions of people from around the globe dream of immigrating.
If you truly love your fellow man you want what is best for him. There is not a single socialist country that has ever made its economy better or its people freer. Cuba was the second richest country in the Spanish-speaking world when Socialism came and today only outranks Haiti in the poverty rankings in Latin America. America has lifted more people out of poverty with Capitalism, within our borders and around the world, than all the Socialists in history ever even PLANNED to do.
A Socialist desires enslavement to a State Master that controls his life, owns everything, dictates what everyone will do and when. He does not want economic freedom because he does not want the moral responsibility to develop his own abilities to provide for himself and his family.
The Socialist has a passion to see everything controlled by the Almighty State, which in his imagination is a benevolent god but in reality becomes a malevolent tyrant that micromanages the details of everyone’s life with all the blundering inefficiency, unintended consequences, and plain idiocy that has earned the word ‘bureaucrat’ its infamy – with the added bonus of utter ruthlessness.
The Socialist wants a daddy state to ensure his life is planned out for him. He is filled with envy to the point that his aim in life is to make sure no one has more of anything than he does. He is ruled by covetousness, which makes his goal the certainty that there is nothing anyone else has that he doesn’t have, even if his only option is to destroy what others have to fulfill this desire.
To achieve its utopian aims the Socialist State must be Totalitarian, which is why it is favored by godless people who want the state to be their god, endowed with absolute power, worthy of their worship, ruthlessly eliminating any who do not share its grand vision.
There is no point blaming the tragedies of Socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over other people is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called Slavery or Socialism or something else.
Socialists Want to Force Everyone Else to do what they want them to do
Now to a Leftist/Socialist the immediate answer is to MAKE companies pay more than the workers are really worth to them. If companies try to move to a different town, the Leftist says MAKE them stay. If they try to raise prices—which would negate the pay raises, of course—the Left would say MAKE them stop raising prices. If they go broke the Left would say, “That’s all right. The State should own all the businesses anyway.”
Once the Socialist State takes over people begin to realize that lousy workers are getting $15 an hour and great workers are getting $15 an hour and they all become lousy workers. Why not?
Productivity goes down and shortages ensue. The State then brings out the guns and says, “We will MAKE you work hard.”
It is all about making people do what they do not want to do. People naturally want to be FREE. And without Economic Freedom you are not free. In the end the Socialist State builds the first walls in human history not designed to keep invaders out but to keep its own citizens from fleeing. To MAKE them stay where they do not want to stay.
You Can Only Level Down
What if I were to show you that Economic Freedom--Free Enterprise, if you will--causes the greatest prosperity for any society but inequality at the same time?
The only way to level everybody is to level down. You can cut down the tall poppies. You cannot make short poppies tall.
Just like if you line up 100 people at random to run a mile they would all hit the finish line at a different time, people are not equal in their capacity to make money by producing goods and services that other people want.
You cannot make the slower runners faster. If you want all runners to hit the finish line at the same time there is only one way to do it: slow down the faster runners. That is why all leveling schemes level down, which is why Socialist countries always do worse than free countries.
And all leveling schemes involve force; you have to force the faster runners to slow down because it is not their natural inclination not to run as fast as they can--if there is some prize, especially.
Obviously, if you told them all at the beginning that no matter how fast they try to run the State is going to force them to slow down so as to finish the race at the same time as the slowest runner in the pack, no one who is capable of running fast will even try to do so. And this happens in all socialist regimes: people stop trying to work hard because there is nothing in it for them to do so.
If I told you I would give you $100 to work for me for one day and you would get the $100 no matter if you slept and worked your ass off, most people would sleep. It is man's nature to get by with as little exertion as possible. This is a problem because wealth and prosperity do not come from thin air: they have to be created by the efforts of people. No effort, no wealth.
What about the poor?
Let us take a look at the Americans who are considered poor--the lowest 20%. The average 'poor' American has more living space--lives in a larger house or apartment--than does than the average Middle Class European. That’s average European, not poor European.
The major dietary problem facing poor Americans is eating too much, not too little; the majority of poor adults, like most Americans, are overweight. The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from children in the upper middle class and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms.
Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age in the late 1950s and are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than American soldiers who charged the beaches at Normandy during World War Two.
38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes. 62 percent of "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars. Amongst the poorest Americans, virtually 100% have a refrigerator, 98% have a televisions, 65% have more than one TV, 98% have a stove, 81% a microwave, 78% live in Air Conditioning, 71% have a DVD player, 64% have cable, 62% own a washing machine, and the vast majority have a cell phone.
"Poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than did the "average" U.S. citizen throughout much of the 20th Century.
All Americans except bums qualify as one-percenters—compared to all the people in the world, half of whom live on $2 a day. If the movement to kill the goose who laid the golden egg - led by Bernie Sanders and AOC - is not based on envy and covetousness, I don't know what is.
An American family on welfare, with no members that work, has a higher standard of living than 98% of the people on this planet.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Socialism destroys the morality of individual conduct—this is inevitable and undeniable. An ideology whose main promise is relief from personal responsibility cannot help but be anti-moral in its effect, however lofty its ideals. The personal obligation to remedy inequities as individuals is weakened. The state will set everything right.
Moral values, liberty, independence, truth, honesty, democracy, and individual autonomy—all are demoted under Socialism. The liberty of individuals, freedom of speech, and freedom of association—these are eliminated in favor of group rights. The moral sense is blunted instead of sharpened.
American students are taught that profit is immoral, and activities involving economic risk are disparaged, as if gains made by the few winners among risk takers—the prospect of which makes the risks worth taking—are deserving of moral opprobrium. To employ a hundred people is called exploitation, but to command a hundred people as a bureaucrat somehow honorable. Capitalists are despised if they win, and despised if they lose.
If the coercive power of the state decides the outcomes of persons, the only power worth having will be the power of the state.
You Can Have Economic Freedom or Democratic Socialism But Not Both
Economic Freedom is connected to a host of other benefits. Countries with higher levels of Economic Freedom enjoy higher GDP, lower levels of poverty, educational and technological advancement, cleaner natural environments, business dynamism and innovation, better health outcomes, longevity, and social progress.
But Socialism works directly against Economic Freedom, and therefore threatens each of these accompanying benefits. If America adopts Democratic Socialism, it will slash the economy by 40 percent—$24,000 per year for the average American—according to a report by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.
It was American free market capitalism that raised the standard of living around the globe. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record.