Why Socialism Is Here To Stay

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

“[T]he government has to take resources from someone before it can dole them out to others. This act of taking destroys an economy. The more you take from the productive members of society, the less productive they become. That’s the primary lesson of the history of socialism.”

The above quote is from Porter Stansberry – from his book, America 2020: The Survival Blueprint. It states a concept I’ve described for years, but Porter states it more succinctly than I ever have. In particular, it negates the argument by many “progressives” that, even if they don’t recommend full-on socialism, they believe in getting “just the right mix” of socialism and capitalism to create the ideal system.

Unfortunately, as viable as this concept may sound, even moderate socialistic national policies result in moderate deterioration of the system. It’s not unlike being “just a little” addicted to heroin.

It may be argued that, “That’s different. With heroin, the addict will always end up wanting more and he’ll become even more dependent.” Exactly so – and that’s unquestionably true for socialism as well. Once the concept of “free stuff” is part of a nation’s governing system, the desire for more free stuff will inexorably rise.

And, of course, historically, we have seen that governments always step up to the plate whenever the demand for more free stuff is suggested. But why should this be so? Wouldn’t a more conservative government be less likely to proffer entitlements than a more liberal government?

Actually, no. To believe this is to misunderstand the very nature of governance. Those who are governed like to believe that their government exists to serve them, and all political leaders are quick to encourage this perception. However, amongst themselves, political leaders fully understand that they exist primarily to feed off of and dominate the electorate. Of course, they can’t actually admit this, but, regardless of party affiliation, that is their very raison d'tre.

In a free-market society, a government is not especially necessary. It may be needed to defend the country if it’s invaded, or, arguably, it may be useful in creating a national currency, building national highways, etc. (But even these needs may be argued.)

A free-market society is beneficial, as it creates prosperity. It enriches the population with money, goods, and services. It also rewards those who are most productive. However, it does tend to leave behind those who are less productive, and here’s where political leaders find their opportunity to cash in.

Let’s say we have a country that’s made up of five voters, with their respective net worth as follows:

Voter A:   $1

Voter B:   $10

Voter C:   $100

Voter D:   $1,000

Voter E:   $10,000

If I were running for office and declared that no one should own more than $10, I would not be elected, as most voters would quite rightfully regard me as a threat. But if I were to declare that “the greedy rich” have too much money and should be required to “give some back,” I might get all voters except Voter E to vote for me.

Why should this be so? Because no one thinks of himself as being amongst “the greedy rich.” For the man who is worth $1,000, the greedy rich are those who are worth $10,000 or more. But, likewise, the man worth $100 thinks of the greedy rich as those worth $1,000 or more. Human nature dictates that we don’t see ourselves as greedy, but it’s not too difficult for politicians to convince us that those who have more than us are greedy. Further, once we’re convinced of this, it’s not too difficult to fool us into believing that the greedy rich have, in some way, achieved this wealth by swindling us out of it. And, now that you mention it, yes, we would like to have some of it back, thank you.

So, any population becomes an easy target for leaders who promise to take from the rich and “give back” to the less rich, like a modern-day Robin Hood. But what of that claim that “just the right mix” of socialism could take some away from the rich, but leave prosperity intact? Well, here’s why that will never happen in any country…

Political leaders, as stated above, do not exist to serve the populace, they exist to feed off of and dominate them. They cannot do this without the wealth of the electorate passing through their hands. The more of the electorate’s wealth passes through their hands, the greater the amount that can be skimmed off to both enrich themselves and increase their power. (Only in Uruguay does the President leave office driving the same Volkswagen he did when he took office.)

And so, it’s the nature of governments (whether they claim to be conservative or liberal) to seek to increase the size of government annually (requiring ever-more revenue to pass through their hands) and to take an ever-greater part in the hands-on distribution of the nation’s wealth. All governments will do all they can to grow themselves, as it’s very much in their interest to do so. All governments will, regardless of their party rhetoric, continually pursue a greater level of socialistic policies. In this regard, political parties are interchangeable.

So, where does that leave the individual voter? Well, the vast majority will vote for the candidate whose rhetoric most closely follows his own ideals, but he will surely be the loser as a result. (Campaign rhetoric almost always proves to be a lie.)

The choice, really, is whether the individual is living in a jurisdiction where he believes the government has already become so socialistic that he’s a net loser, rather than a net recipient. Beyond this point, his future can only be on a downward trajectory.

This is a most unpleasant conclusion to come to grips with, as it informs the individual not only of his current situation, but the rest of his life. In standing back and observing his entire future from a greater vantage point, he realises that, increasingly, he will be beating his head against the wall if he remains where he is.

Those who internationalise do so with the understanding that, if they choose one country because it’s the most ideal to do banking in and choose another because it’s the most productive to invest in, they will prosper. At some point, they additionally realise that it’s also beneficial to apply that logic to their choice of country of residence.

Throughout the life of anyone who advances himself, there’s a tendency to change neighbourhoods from time to time to attain a better quality of life. Yet most people drop this logic as soon as they reach the borders of the country they were born in. In truth, the decision to move beyond national borders to choose a neighbourhood – one where the system has not deteriorated to the point that it’s dramatically usurping the wealth of the individual – is not such a great leap. In fact, it’s relatively easy to do.

In much of the former “free world,” socialism is here to stay, but the individual citizen needn’t be. He may vote with his feet and move to a better neighbourhood.

*  *  *

Socialism often leads to economic and societal collapse, hyperinflation, shortages, and shrinking personal freedom. This has happened most recently in Venezuela. The truth is, it can happen anywhere. The U.S. is not immune. In fact, it’s extremely vulnerable. Increasing socialism, bad financial decisions, and massive debt levels will cause another financial crisis sooner rather than later. We believe the coming crash is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we saw in 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when an economy collapses, let alone how to prepare… That’s why Doug Casey just released a guide titled Getting Out of Dodge that will show you exactly how. Click here to download the PDF now.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TrollandDump's picture
TrollandDump (not verified) Mar 28, 2017 7:47 PM
knukles's picture

Why I was just sitting here filing my nails wondering what happened.

TrollandDump's picture
TrollandDump (not verified) knukles Mar 28, 2017 7:57 PM

You could have waited 30s more to bolden that link and throw another jab at the krauts.

And FUCK that ass licker bitch below me

Here's a kraut for you bob_bitch. _|_

You're my nigger bitch tonight. Fight Club fatso!

 

PS. Sooner or later Socialists will merge with their jew cousins, the neoCOHens

J S Bach's picture

Let's be honest about something here...

"Socialism" as we know it - CAN work... under ONE condition...

(gasp from the crowd)

Any guesses?

If it is applied amongst a homogenous and disciplined people (i.e. wholely white nation)... it can work miracles.

However, when it is applied with every lower level of featherless biped in on the "benefits"... it will fail ultimately and utterly.

Why, the naive ask?  (Those with an I.Q. of less than 95 will need some assistance here...)

Psssst...  Lower-latitude peoples - in general - cannot keep their hands out of the cookie jar before they've merited or contributed anywhere near their fair share to the utopian system.  Thus, what they derive from it is an almost guaranteed negative upon it.  The burden, therefore, lies soley upon those higher beings which can supply the necessary largess to sustain their undeserved sustenance.

Cruel sounding... I know.  But, truth often is.

Future Jim's picture

No, your theory is plausible, but we learned a while ago that even under ideal conditions, socialism fails disastrously.

http://endofinnocence.com/communism-vs-free-markets-at-plymouth-rock/

J S Bach's picture

I do not speak of communism, Herr Jim.  Socialism is markedly different from the full-blown corruptive system of self-chosen-elitist communists.  True Socialism - if applied honestly - would have as its tenet the BENEFICIANCE of all of the nation's people - NOT their subjugation.

bobdog54's picture

Except that humans are not all that honest in general and even slight nonsocialistic infractions eventually ignite bigger infractions and so goes the "we're only human" way of things.

But I get your point, even if totally impossible until there is a pill to turn us all into loving zombies...

rmopf2010's picture

 

 

Socialism as is

A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

 

Says it all

 

 

 


MEFOBILLS's picture

 

“[T]he government has to take resources from someone before it can dole them out to others. This act of taking destroys an economy. The more you take from the productive members of society, the less productive they become. That’s the primary lesson of the history of socialism.”

 

All of the successful economies of the past were mixed economies.  That means they had an element of socialism.  One of the reason's that Germany was attacked in WW1 was due to the successful Kaiser system.  It was beating English "free market" capitalism.

America got rich under protectionism.  The American economist of that era knew Governments role, when constrained to inelastic markets, was beneficial.  It delivered this sector at the lowest price.  If you allow monopoly in inelastic sectors that drives prices UP.  Free markets don't work when predators take rents.

America's protectionist takeoff:

https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Protectionist-Takeoff-1815-1914-Michael/...

 

The same economist that organized America's protectionist takeoff, then went to Japan, and advised them.  Japan's economy then released itself from Englands grip, and then grew rapidly.

 

It gets annoying listening to the bleeting of free-market theorists, when these sort of theories are shown by history to be trash.

And yes, it requires a homogenous population.  It is a disaster to immigrate low IQ people, and then let them vote themselves into the treasury.  It also takes NOT LETTING women vote,  They also vote themselves power they don't deserve.  Women will grow government at the expense of productive men.

Government has a role, and only it can do some things.  For example, organizing large complex projects that straddle long time periods, and over large distances.  

Some of these articles posted here at ZH are beyond stupid, and don't comport with reality.  

What kind of socialism, and what kind of people ... that is the real question.  A permanent underclass voting themselves from the treasury, will cause revolution.

At least have some real theories in hand for the aftermath.

Inzidious's picture

In my very humble opinion, it's Democracy and voting that's the problem. Voters are too easily manipulated and extremely self serving.

sinbad2's picture

Exactly, as Marx said, because voters will sell their vote, they are easily manipulated.

All a politician in America has to do is promise tax cuts, and he has bought the election.

Teja's picture

So your solution would be for yourself to become Emperor for Life? That would solve the voter manipulation problem, I agree.

In my even more humble opinion, democracy is a political construct avoiding the need of regular bloody insurrections against deranged kings and elites.

There are alternatives, like the Chinese construct of a combination between oligarchy and meritocracy. Party membership is not restricted to certain families, but it helps to have the right parents. And political influence is peddled out to successful businessmen to integrate them into the system. Almost identical to the US system, I would think, the only difference being that the US have two parties to choose from.

But both for China and the US, the risk is high that the one- or two-party "simulated democracy" system becomes completely corrupted, which under the right conditions may lead to a more or less bloody insurrection. We will see which one of the two will break first, both with their very own debt bubbles.

eforce's picture

Robin Hood took from the state and gave to the poor, to all those who besmirch his name (including the author)...fuck you.

shovelhead's picture

Great.

Pay for 10 dindus instead of 5.

True socialism.

El Vaquero's picture

It works when it is voluntary and anybody can benefit.  Linux is such an example.  We own it, and we can modify it to our heart's content, though any derivative of the FOSS that you make must also be FOSS.  However, even your socialist lite countries are using the same perpetual growth models for their economy as non socialist countries, and will fail.  It costs a lot to keep all of those gibs promises, and who better to borrow from than future generations?  

Jubal Early's picture

The key point with your analogy is the freedom of association.  If I don't like Redhat I can choose Ubuntu or BSD, or even pay for Windows.

Socialism can work if there is complete freedom of association and I can choose to opt out if the government starts doing things I don't approve of.

In a homogenious high trust society the idea of what a government should do will be far more universal and hence more likely to be voluntarily supported.

In a multicultural society with certain groups of a low IQ and aggressive nature there will automatically be a tendency for these groups to demand more from the state than the others and for them to use force and violence to get it.

Common_Law's picture

You can opt out in the US. The simplest summary is the distinction between state citizenship and federal citizenship.

"There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States** and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter. [Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823] [(1949)]

It is an immensely suppressed? topic and zero information about the legal system is taught in US schools. 

Explore www.sedm.org for more info. No religious legal claims required. 

BrownCoat's picture

@ J S Bach,

Ya might want to reread that part about government always grows. Then think about how politicians are rewarded. Does the population like austerity or pork? We don't have to assume the author is correct that government always gets bigger. History has shown that socialism and communism never works for the populace in the long run (the elites do well). That same history is full of starvation and murder by totalitarian governments. 

otschelnik's picture

 

There is a culture aspect to what Johann Sebastian is refering to which goes deep into history.  The Norsk peoples, the Finns, the Lapps, the Danes for centuries lived in communal "long houses" and worked, fought on a shared basis.  Women were equal partners in the decision making process.  Yet they recognized private land and by law and/or tradition left their land to the oldest son, a 'socialist-capitalist mix.'  The younger sons had to go the coastal towns and man the boats.  This gave rise to the norsk expansion of 8-12th centuries. 

Today these are remarkably cohesive societies, low corruption, high degree of social participation, high levels of performance in standard scientific exams. 

CoolClo's picture

@ Bach..

 

The so called Pilgrims tried it, and almost starved to death..

J S Bach's picture

I was thinking of the more sane and nature-based example of Germany in the 1930s, which succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.  (As opposed to the insane bible-based lunacy of the Puritans).   Nature and her laws win in the long-run... without exception.

Ms. Erable's picture

The Germans of the 30's were intelligent, trainable, and had a serious work ethic. There's only one modern country I can think of with a similar populace: China. And their brand of socialism ain't workin' out so great these days.

roddy6667's picture

Could you expand on that remark, about how their brand of socialism isn't working out lately? BTW, I live in China and I am awaiting your opinions and wonder where you get the "information" to have these opinions.

Oldwood's picture

Is there any doubt why drug addictions are also considered "DEPENDENCIES"?

Redistribution, collectivism, ANYTHING that rewards without labor or effort is DEPENDENCY and is destructive and ALWAYS ENDS BADLY. Sure, we resent the theft, but the theft ultimately is NOT the destructive issue. It is the simple fact that allowing large numbers of people to survive and prosper without contributing, without productivity, is a disease that once reaches a critical level spreads like wildfire. NO ONE will work and society will collapse. Exponential growth of the "entitled".

Jeffersonian Liberal's picture

Partially correct, Maestro.

I argued that point against a liberal who was using Sweden as an example of how socialism can work.

I explained some critical differences, namely that they did not tax Peter to pay Paul Their "redistribution" was essentially temporal, not based upon class. They took taxes from Paul when he was young to pay for Paul's services as he aged.

But that is not the critical difference. The critical difference was, as you've stated, their homogeneity. I pointed out that they were almost entirely white and not only that but Christian, and not only Christian, but a large majority Lutheran.

However, (and this is where you err), being white and Christian and homogeneous is not enough to make socialism survive.

You see, the majority in Sweden are also liberal and 'celebrate diversity.'

This is why they opened their borders and why Malmo became a Balkanized Islamofascist shithole that the police and ambulances refuse to enter because they don't want to be attacked.

So, being white and homogeneous is not enough for socialism to work. The people would also have to be somewhat protectionist, nationalistic, proud of their culture to the point that they would restrict immigration to where it could not pose neither a demographic nor a cultural threat to their own.

It is very difficult for this sort of a culture to survive by being completely isolationist (they need trade in order to have the funds to pay for their socialist programs).

However, the rest of the world would put economic sanctions on any nation that was so nationalistic and white (think South Africa) and the socialist system would then fail.

So, in theory, socialism can work in many places. But it always fails when put into practice.

Azannoth's picture

I think you missed the point of the story, Socialism is like Cancer, you can argue that a healthy body can keep it at bay but sooner or later the winds will change and the defensive mechanisms will no longer be able to contain the disease thus it's only a matter of time before the inevitable collapse, yes it may take 200 years but Socialism is like rust under your paint when untreadet it will spread and eat away at the structure till there no nothing but paint left holding up the whole thing.. and that can't last too long.

bob_bichen's picture
bob_bichen (not verified) Looney Mar 28, 2017 8:36 PM

TrollAndDump is now  "blue fin" 

 

Future Jim's picture

The problem with socialism is, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.

Nexus789's picture

The problem with capitalism is you soon run out of other people's assets to steal.

Ms. Erable's picture

That's a feature (not a bug) of socialism/collectivism. Get back to us when you understand the phrase 'added value'.

DaveA's picture

Under socialism, millions die of hunger.
Under capitalism, millions die of obesity!

rmopf2010's picture

Lady Tatcher and Mr Reagan

 

Oh I Miss so much those days !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Used to think Trump would be the 21th century Reagen :( so sad

 

 

Teja's picture

Sadly, both Thatcher and Reagan died of Alzheimer's. Whatever that may signify.

Future Jim's picture

We recently learned on ZH that, on average, Venezualns lost 19 pounds each last year. The miracle of Socialism!

OTOH, socialists say we should eat lots of grains and carbs, but the socialist diet was killing me.

http://endofinnocence.com/?s=socialist+diet

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Hmmmm, so everyone can then fit into sexy size 2 designer jeans but unfortunately none will be available? Guess it's a bit challenging to spin that one.

Miffed

shovelhead's picture

The bright side is how good looking you"ll be when you're walking around begging naked.

Nexus789's picture

Seeing that that country has been defacto run by the IMF since 2009 and targeted by Clinton when she was sec of state I would suggest there other factors involved.  Firstly,  you corrupt the financial system,  then you cause a crisis and finally you steal the people's assets which in this case will be oil.  The people will then be grateful for the crumbs that saves them. 

bob_bichen's picture
bob_bichen (not verified) TrollandDump Mar 28, 2017 7:49 PM

dailywesterner,com  = SPAM - VIRUS - TROJANS !!

danger!!!   DO NOT VISIT THIS WEBSITE!  

Chronic spammer XYTHRAS has "reincarnated" in a Truth-in-Advertising new handle as "TrollAndDump."

 

Take a minute and write to abuse@zerohedge.com and ask that this SICK, SPAMMING FREAK SHOW of a TOXIC DUMPSTER FIRE who suffers from a serious case of SPAMMING COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR and request that  "TrollAndDump" and "XYTHRAS" be permanently banned for chronic spamming

john doeberg's picture

Don't feed the troll. How silly can you be? Even his/her anagram alias has "troll" in it. LOL

By the way, I've seen earlier a post by IT  saying he's spamming that email account with http://www.mailbait.info/ Good luck having Tyler finding your emails between all that spam he might be sending

 

BandGap's picture

It's called Social Security for a reason.

We currently have a mix of fascism (when we have to "save" companies), socialism with a veneer of capitalism. We are closer to the former two than the latter.

This author should pull his head out of his ass.

GUS100CORRINA's picture

Why Socialism Is Here To Stay?

My response: Because Marxism is being taught and practiced in most educational. MSM and governmental organizations within the USA. Case in point: NEA is a poster child for the promotion of socialist ideology.

And the socialist hits just KEEP ON COMING!!!

rmopf2010's picture

 

 

 

The most important of all is not what we are taught in schools and MSM (off course it helps)

What really matters is in every western country most half of the population is on Welfare (retirees account 35% in my country)

and Big Government jobs (if your wife is on big government job, who will you vote for? see ?)

 

Socialism use our money to buy major parts of the population votes.

Elections are biased!

 

The poor bastards who feed the state now are outnumbered by the roaches

 

Remind me of Rome

 

Bread and Games, if Rooskies or any one else tries to take my country don't count on me to defend it

 

 

SeuMadruga's picture

I'm almost becoming an "ex-atheist", as I'm coming to the conclusion that socialism can only be a devil's thing...

Common_Law's picture

You know what they don't even mention at any level of education in the US? THE LAW!!! You know that thing they always say makes them oppress us. How many people outside the BAR club have ever read it?

"There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter." [Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823] [(1949)]

Ever wonder what happened to Common law? You know that thing that governed our country for 150yrs. Now they tell you it doesn't exist?

www.sedm.org (start here) 1000's of pages of free legal material.

red1chief's picture

Yes, with the multinationals profits are privatized while losses are socialized.  If you are in the top .01%, the best of both worlds!

Expat's picture

So, anything socialist must be avoided or it's the slippery slope to communism?  Disband the army, the police, government.  Quick!  Save us"

Asshole.

trumpala's picture

There is NO Socialism. It's called neoliberalism towards the neofeudalism.