Socialism makes the poor even more poor, and makes everybody else poor

Marco Caceres, a writer and editor of, on his blog here, titled “Socalists love capital too”, asked this question in a commentary:

I suppose I would be more impressed with Socialism if its adherents invented their own currency of exchange for time and labor. Capitalists naturally rely on capital — money. Ironically, Socialists also rely on capital. Perhaps they might adopt some sort of barter system. That at least would be more original and less hypocritical.

A socialist will tell you they’re not against capital per se, but against private capital, or, “private ownership of the means of production”. The fact is, they want to own it all. They claim ownership of all wealth producing industry in the name of the “people”, but the “people” never have any power at all when they do take over.

I saw a piece on YouTube of a debate in the British Parliament, after Margaret Thatcher’s policies favoring private enterprise an resisting the “communitarian” policies of the European Parliament had given the country a period of prosperity.

One of the members of the Parliament was supposedly bemoaning the poor in his district, the same fakery as usual, even while admitting that her conservative economic policies had benefited the British economy.

She put one hand high in the air, another down low, and said he does not want to bring the poor up to here (moving the lower hand up) but he wants to bring everyone down to here and “make the poor even more poor”, bringing the topmost hand lowering to the level of the other.

That’s what has happened wherever socialism has been imposed on a nation, whether the complete manifestation under Stalin, or in parts like in Europe.

The poor in Honduras prefer the American free enterprise model over even the Cuban and Venezuelan model, even as poor and uneducated as many of them are. They make this American, “catrachado” by marriage proud of his wife’s country.

And there is no such thing as a “socialist democracy” (direct people rule by referendum) or “socialist republic” in reality, because without private money outside the ruling structures –be they multiple branches or not– there is no voice outside officially approved opinions, or officially allowed opinions.

You can read about what Jesus had to say about “tax collectors” in Matthew 17:24-27, even as it says he did pay the tribute required by Rome. It is not flattering at all, and it extends to the rulers who have to confiscate private wealth to be able to govern, unless, as in socialism, they own the “means of production” —or control it, even like the government does so much in the USA.

That’s the strategy. Burden private industry with so many taxes and regulations and controls until they find it difficult to meet the needs of customers and employees, then blame it on them, and claim they had to “take them over” to “save” them.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: