Download Critiquing Government Intervention: Unattainable Promises of Socialism and more Papers English Language in PDF only on Docsity!
Cory Burdette E. Hollis ENGL 1020-N 9 December 2009 The Unattainable Promises of Socialism In light of the current economic crisis in the United States, some politicians in Washington are using the recession as proof that capitalism is flawed and that the government should play a bigger role in the free market. The current administration is taking bold steps toward implementing social and economic policies that will ultimately create a government that will resemble socialistic forms of government seen in many European countries. While President Obama would probably never publicly claim that he supports socialism, his agenda, which includes, large government spending, government-run health care, regulatory policies aimed at controlling corporate businesses, and increasing taxes on the rich all in the name of creating a more fair society, seems to say otherwise. This is an issue that I am deeply concerned about because a steady drift towards socialism in the United States will eventually create social and economic costs that are significantly greater than any theoretical benefits projected by advocates of socialism. Because the ideal of socialism contradicts the basic principles of human behavior, society and the high economic standards that are a result of capitalism will inevitably deteriorate in the United States just like they have in other socialist countries. As a young, ambitious person, I have aspirations of becoming a prosperous businessman. Like many other entrepreneurs, I believe that hard work creates endless possibilities that can lead to unparalleled social and monetary success. Without capitalism, I know that none of this would be attainable and that is why it is becoming progressively discouraging to hear that our current
administration blames the economic recession on the fundamental ideas of capitalist theory. With the free enterprise system at risk of being destroyed by misguided political figures, I find myself beginning to wonder if my dream of becoming a lucrative business executive is a goal that is worth pursuing. I can continue working full-time while concurrently attending college full-time; but, because socialism is starting to creep into American society, my efforts seem increasingly futile. Why should I diligently apply myself in college if the economic reward that I attain because of it is going to be taken away and redistributed by the government? Throughout most of American history, such questions have never had to be asked and that is why this political subject should not be overlooked. My uncertainty about being able or allowed to obtain economic prosperity through capitalism is in direct contradiction of what America has represented to the world for many decades. Advocates of socialism promise a utopia in which “prosperity, equality, and security” (Perry 1) reign supreme while completely ignoring the adverse consequences that attempts at this ideal have caused “around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China” (Perry 1). This is evident in the fact that “after decades of oppressive socialism and economic deprivations, people in C&EE [Central and Eastern Europe] were hungry for more freedom and better economic conditions of life” (Pejovich 2). If socialism were in fact the epitome of social perfection, it seems bizarre that the citizens of these countries would want to forfeit the benefits of this “utopia” for better economic conditions. In the mid-90s, while putting their own lives in jeopardy, citizens of Haiti would travel several hundred miles attempting to come to the United States so they could attain a better standard of living. Ironically, the “workers’ paradise” (Perry
- of socialist Cuba is only fifty miles from Haiti. Instead, they chose the United States where the positive outcome of capitalism is self-evident (Perry 1). Each of these socialist countries
socialist bureaucrats. President Obama, however, has seemingly made transforming America into a full-fledged socialist nation his primary objective as president. While trying to further his political agenda, Obama conveniently disregards the fact that “American capitalism has created the economic machine never seen in human history without socialized medicine, federalized education and government-controlled energy policy” (Pejovich 1). This should cause great concern among Americans because once the essential ideology of capitalism is destabilized by politicians who claim that free enterprise is directly responsible for the current economic downturn, the United States is well on its way to becoming a complete socialist nation. Still, some believe that this transition may not be so bad; however, they should be reminded that, throughout history, “socialism has repeatedly failed to duplicate the accomplishments of capitalism” (Pejovich 1) that every American citizen benefits from today. Although the United States has proven that capitalism creates unprecedented social and economic wealth among its citizens, experiments with socialist policies have still been implemented and, in the end, they have proven to be colossal failures. For instance, during the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson attempted “to create the Great Society through a series of socialist reforms” (Telzrow 4). Because President Johnson viewed the government as a necessary tool in creating “a vast commonwealth based on economic and redistributive objects” (Telzrow 4), he established socialist programs aimed at reducing the poverty rate, making health care more accessible, and enhancing education. Despite the government’s large spending, society showed no sign of improving because of it. In the article, “Socialism’s Broken Promises”, Michael Telzrow cites Charles Murray who illustrates this fact by writing: “The unadorned statistic gives pause. In 1968, when Lyndon Johnson left office, 13 percent of Americans were poor, using the official definition. Over the next twelve years, our expenditures on social welfare quadrupled.
And, in 1980, the percentage of poor Americans was – 13 percent” (Telzrow 4). Even today, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate still remains at “13.2 percent” (Number in Poverty…). President Johnson’s Great Society conclusively demonstrates that, no matter how much money the federal government throws at society’s dilemmas, “poverty [remains] a constant fact” (Telzrow 4). Even though poverty is an inevitable evil, it could be enormously reduced if most social welfare programs were abolished. This idea may sound ironic to some; however, with objective evaluation it is clear that such a concept makes sense. Socialist programs, such as President Johnson’s, fail because they remove “personal responsibility and status rewards from the equation” (Telzrow 4). When citizens become beneficial factors of a country’s productivity, society rewards them with a higher status than the ones who do nothing. The possibility of increasing one’s societal status often provides the necessary incentive for “even those at the bottom of society’s ladder [to] envision a day in which they move up” (Telzrow 4). Socialism, however, encourages apathy and discourages behavior that brings about freedom from the woes of poverty because welfare programs remove any encouragement to succeed by taking away status from working-class citizens (Telzrow 4). In a free market system, prices are efficiently guided by the law of supply and demand to ensure a resourceful allocation of scarce goods and services. This is the backbone of American capitalism. The interrelated process of supply and demand, by which market prices are determined, guarantees the economic well-being of both the consumer and the producer (Perry 1- 2). Socialism, however, offers a different approach by which market prices are established and regulated by the government. This regulation by socialist bureaucrats creates artificial prices that result in complete economic inefficiency because fixed prices “always transmits misleading
services that would possibly produce larger revenue because it would be much easier to let socialism reward its deficiency. This, in turn, greatly contributes to failures in trade and industry and the reduction of total economic welfare of producers and consumers because profitable activity among businesses becomes stagnate when there is no motivation to manage resources competently. Because centrally planned economies fail to reallocate “resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure” (Perry 3). Socialist nations, therefore, can never experience the benefits that come with the unfettered, free market, profit- and-loss system. The tragedy of socialism continues with its deliberate attempt to attenuate the right of an individual to hold private property rights. One basic tenet of human behavior lies in the fact that people have a desire to possess goods and for them to completely own what is rightfully his or hers. The collectivist doctrine directly violates this principle because it “weakens the owner’s freedom to use his goods in accordance with his subjective preferences” (Pejovich 2). Because socialism is a theory based on the dogma of creating social justice, individuals gradually lose the ability to hold private property rights because this is viewed as an impediment to the advancement of the “common good” (Pejovich 2). Instead of allowing individuals to solely own and benefit from possessions that they have earned, socialism attempts to redistribute “wealth by people who do not own the resources that are being distributed” (Pejovich 2). Redistributing wealth among society inexorably leads to failures in creating incentives for the general public to become economically successful. Incentives provide the necessary motivation for men and women to become productive members of society and, therefore, achieve success. Perhaps the single most destructive facet of socialism is its inadequacy in providing proper economic incentives to the populace. Once
individuals realize that they are “serfs of the state” (Licino 3), their drive to succeed in life becomes less important to them. There is absolutely no reason for them to gain security and wealth because it will simply be taken away and redistributed by socialist politicians. It becomes evident to people that, no matter how hard or diligent they work, their efforts are pointless because they will never achieve socioeconomic progress. Collectivist governments, therefore, “deprive the human spirit of ambition, aspiration, enterprise, determination and industry” (Licino
- because of “its inability to foster, promote and develop the potential of people through incentives” (Licino 3). While the creation of a socially just society may sound enticing to some, it is imperative that they understand that the application of such a theory has proven to be entirely inconsistent with the ideal that is promised by proponents of socialism. Whether we consider the adverse consequences that socialism has caused in other nations, the explicit contradiction of economics, or the violation of basic human principles, it is obvious that experiments with socialism in the United States will impose unjustified social and economic costs on society. While I adamantly believe that hard work enables one to realize possibilities that would otherwise be unattainable, I am beginning to understand that such diligent efforts may not be worth pursuing. President Obama and members of congress need to objectively evaluate the outcome of socialist policies before they try to advance them any further. At a time like this, it would be easy to blame the economic downturn on faulty capitalist theory; however, no other nation has attained such a vast amount of wealth and overall economic welfare. Thus, we should never forget that the free market system is directly responsible for the security and prosperity that every American citizen so freely enjoys today.
