The Rise of Socialism and its Ramifications

Here's something I wrote for my English class, and I thought that it would be pertinent to current events.




Since Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, those who advocate an equal distribution of wealth suggest either a complete redistribution of wealth, or a less obvious version of governmental sponsored theft—the creation of “social services”. History shows in many examples, especially the late USSR, that a complete redistribution of wealth fails on every level possible. In response to this, those speaking in the name of “the public welfare,” or something along those lines, attempt to socialize certain fields such as healthcare or retirement savings in a form of “Communism Light”—known as Socialism. While these programs may sound appealing when presented in the form of “free healthcare” or “social security”, when looked at analytically, they doom themselves to fail due to lack of competition amongst unmotivated producers.
Currently, ten percent of the US population owns seventy-one percent of the wealth, and even further, the top one percent owns thirty-eight percent of all wealth. Obviously, this glaring problem demands some sort of attention, and even though a knee-jerk reaction may result in taxing the rich and giving the money levied to the poor, this reaction is completely unwarranted and nothing more than government-sponsored theft. What else could one label taking money from another by force? The real solution for providing an equal distribution of wealth lies in reducing taxes across the socio-economic spectrum and completely eliminating the federal income tax. This change might seem too drastic, but when one views the actual statistics, one will notice that if the United States eliminates the federal income tax, the federal government (Concord Coalition 2) will receive an equal income to about the year 2000 (US Treasury 3). Obviously, an income from this year should suffice for today’s standards, and even though those who represent the public would have to rethink a large number of programs and even certain foreign policy tactics, this number seems manageable if this government would finally embrace a quality that seems so lost upon them—frugality.


Abolishing the income tax may force the federal government to show frugality every now and then and, the money finally given back to the public who earned it would reap huge societal benefits, especially for the working middle class and upper-lower classes. Obviously, the abolishment of the income tax results in the “rich getting richer,” but to someone making two million dollars yearly, an extra million more obviously increases their income tremendously. But to someone with an income at this level, the person’s quality of life remains relatively static. On the other hand, an extra hundred dollars earned bi-monthly to a single mother of two seems like a godsend—almost enough to pay for daycare or an extra trip to the grocery store. Also, from a macroeconomic standpoint, the economy would probably see untold largesse. According to the law of supply and demand (Adam Smith 4), when the purchasing power, or amount of available capital, of a group or individual becomes larger, then that group or individual desires to purchase more capital or luxury items. Thus, demand increases. Once consumer demand increases, producers increase their supply of goods and services, and when supply increases, prices fall. When prices fall, consumers have more purchasing power or capital than they had originally, and the cycle begins again. Also, with supply and demand increasing rapidly, the need for more jobs presents itself, especially lower-level factory and “blue collar” jobs based on the need for more production. With an increase in the job market, those who may hurt from the loss of certain nanny state programs could easily find the jobs they need. While some may say that forcefully removing people from government support may represent immoral behavior, this action actually benefits those in need, to quote Lao Tzu, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” Welfare reform actually benefits the unemployed because it liberates them from the bonds of sustenance from a source that will never propel them to the location of their dreams. Therefore, if Congress repeals the federal income tax, the US economy should see a sizable drop in prices and considerable market or all goods and services covering the economic spectrum.


A trillion dollar decrease in government income obviously requires an extensive downsizing of the federal government. While most (about half) of cuts in spending to make up for the loss could come from downscaling the military from that of an empire to a non-interventionist (NOT isolationist), defense-based military, the other half would obviously involve the slow attrition of social programs such as social security, welfare, and also the elimination of wasteful government bureaucracy.


One could easily phase out social security by keeping those who have already paid a large sum to the government for their retirement package, but also giving the option (and at some point, requirement) of opting out of the program to those just entering the job market. With inflation at its current rate, and the ever-decreasing amount of funding the program, within decades the government will be unable to provide the necessary amount of funding to keep the program afloat, and rather than wind-fall taxing corporations and small businesses to death, one should just throw aside the program in general. Past that, the government only gives about fifteen hundred dollars monthly to the most qualified candidate for social security, and while that amount may suffice some, to an elderly person with medical bills and astronomically priced medication, this amount equals almost nothing, and if the government did not take the money out of this person’s pay check for the last forty years, maybe they would have more of it in a private retirement account to spend on what they actually need.


Next, to even out the income lost, the government should eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, a useless piece of bureaucracy already covered by the FBI, CIA, and NSA; that elimination of useless spending would reduce the cost of this year’s budget by forty-four point nine billion (yes, with a “b”) dollars (Department of Homeland Security 5). The next to wasteful cabinet level department that the government should downsize lies in the Department of Education. Jimmy Carter made the Department of Education in 1979 and since then, the US position in math and science has fallen dramatically, and not only that, the federal government possesses no constitutional authority whatsoever to mandate or control any school at any level. In this past, the federal government delegated this power to state and local governments, rightfully so. Removing the DOE from the budget saves at least fifty-six billion dollars. The list of departments such as these could meander on and on, but one should understand the level of wastefulness an organization could possess if it enjoyed an almost unlimited supply of money.


All facts aside, this issue comes down blatantly to a moral one. As stated earlier, what else could one call the seizing of goods or currency by force but theft? Pure, outright theft. Government support of this barefaced theft remains irrelevant, and may even suffice as an indictment on those who represent the American public. Any nonsense regarding “greatest good for greatest number of people” obviously comes from someone inept in the field of individual, inalienable rights and regards the Constitution as liberal Christians regard the Bible: “It’s just a metaphor!”