No. 9 Bookworm Podcast — Elizabeth Warren and Socialism are a bad deal

Why Now is the time to consider owning gold
Warren Socialism

Not only is she a squirrely character, Elizabeth Warren’s plans are openly socialist — and socialism’s history proves how dangerous this is for Americans.

(If you prefer listening to reading, the companion podcast is embedded below, or you can listen to it at Libsyn or at Apple podcasts. I’m trying to make a go of my podcast so, if you like it, please share it with your friends and on social media. Giving it good ratings helps too..)

It seems that Elizabeth Warren has had a sudden polling surge in Iowa:

A new Iowa Starting Line-Change Research poll shows the senator opening up a commanding lead in the Iowa Caucus. Warren was the top pick of 28% of likely Iowa Caucus-goers in the poll, an 11-point lead over the nearest competitor. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were both tied for second with 17% each. Pete Buttigieg came in fourth at 13% and Kamala Harris has the backing of 8%.

Given the undistinguished field in which she finds herself, Warren could conceivably ride this bump to a nomination, so I figured I’d say a few words about her. First, as always when I talk about Warren, let me explain that I’m completely biased. I had her as a banking law professor before she realized that she could use her family mythology about her high cheekbones as proof of a distant Native American heritage as leverage for a professorship at Harvard.

Back in the day, Warren was just another professor. In class, I found her confusing, because she had a habit of starting on thought B before finishing thought A. (Confession: I was often confused at law school, but I found her more confusing than most of my professors.) I therefore often found myself in Warren’s office. There, she was friendly, soft spoken . . . and still confusing.

My animus towards her comes from the fact that she assured me certain things wouldn’t be on the final exam . . . yet they were. If memory serves me, I managed to pull a middle to high “B” in the class, which certainly didn’t scar my subsequent legal career, so my dislike for her isn’t rooted in some sort of “she ruined my life” emotion. I just really dislike soft-spoken liars who are boring and confusing teachers.

The next time I heard about Warren was when I discovered she was gaining national celebrity by pointing out the obvious: Affluent people will flock to regions that have reputations for offering good public K-12 schooling, thereby driving up real estate prices. I think a lot of people without Harvard credentials could have figured that one out. If I had been Warren’s teacher, I would have given her an “A” for self promotion and an “F” for original thought. As it was, I was actually kind of impressed that she’d managed to take an unoriginal mind and marginal teaching skills, and go so far.

But now Warren is socialist political candidate and I don’t just dislike her, I worry that the media, helped along with the Leftists in Silicon Valley, could actually propel her to the White House. The fact that Warren has attacked the social media giants is irrelevant. When push comes to shove, if she’s the candidate, they’ll do everything they can to get her into the White House. Once there — God forbid! — Warren might prove herself a more competent and effective administrator than Obama when it comes to imposing socialism on America.

So I guess it’s time to revisit the attacks I made on socialism back in 2016, when it looked like Bernie had a chance, before Hillary’s Super Delegates and other fixers told him to stand down and be quiet. Back then, I created a little Blogger site I named “I Don’t Like Bernie, Because….” I put up four posts there before it became apparent that Bernie would be marginalized, at which point I stopped posting there and returned to my regularly scheduled attacks on Hillary here at the Bookworm Room.

To the extent that Elizabeth Warren is open about her socialism (does she even bother to call it “Democratic Socialism”?), I’m going to import here almost wholesale my post about the history and horrors of socialism. I know you can find better posts on the internet and better books in the library, but this one is mine, it’s what I’ve got, and I’m going with it:
So what is a “socialist” system?  Think of the realm of available politics as a line moving from left to right.  On the far left side is totalitarianism, which means government has all the control and the people have none.  At the far right side is anarchy, which means there is no government at all, although the resulting chaos usually means that people have no control either and therefore seek a strong man to create a totalitarian regime. (As an aside, the terms “Left” and “Right” came into use during the French Revolution when revolutionaries sat to the Speaker’s left in the Parlement and the monarchists sat to his right. Both groups were totalitarian, in that they each envisioned complete government control over the French people. The same is still true for various “Left” and “Right” political groups in Europe.)

All political systems fall somewhere along that line.  The further to the Left they are, the more likely it is that power is centralized, and the further to the Right they are, the more likely it is that there is minimal centralized power, leaving more power with individuals.

Socialism, by definition, is a system that vests power in the government.  The government owns all of the means of production, as well as all of the things produced. All people work under government control, and all goods and services are handed out pursuant to government mandate.

Theoretically, in a socialist country, the people and the government are one and the same. The reality, though, is that you can’t have millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of people in management.

What actually happens, therefore, is that all power resides in a tightly-controlled government group that makes all decisions about everything.  It decides what the country as a whole will build, produce, sell, etc.  As part of this, the government has to to control every aspect of citizens’ lives, in order to make sure that its social and economic goals are met.

READ  The New & . . . Well, NEW Progressive Constitution

Over the last 100 years, socialism has taken on many guises, from hard to soft.  In today’s world, North Korea, which vests all power in one member of one ruling family, is socialism’s most extreme face.  (Venezuela is running a close second.) We know that hundreds of thousands of people who have displeased the North Korean regime live in concentration camps where those who survive work as slaves.

A small percentage of those North Korean citizens who are connected to the ruling party live good lives, with food, shelter, and other creature comforts.  The military is heavily supported, because socialist dictatorships are paranoid.  But for everyone else — well, famine is a common occurrence in North Korea because, as you’ll see repeatedly in socialist countries, government apparatchiks are horrible economic managers.

Socialist governments, because they manage matters so badly, invariably end up fearing their citizens, which leads to a police spying state and increasingly draconian punishments. When you concentrate all power in one entity — that is, all police and military power — that entity can do a great deal of harm, both at home and abroad.

The former Soviet Union wasn’t much better back in the day than North Korea is now.  In its heyday, the Soviet politburo controlled every aspect of people’s lives.  During the 1930s, when Stalin headed the nation, he decided that the Kulaks in Ukraine, who were small farmers with privately owned farms, had to be destroyed to make way for large collective farms run under government control. Thus, when the Kulaks refused to cooperate with Stalin’s grand plan, he used his vast government power to steal their grain and starved them to death.  Millions died.

From the 1950s through the 1980s, China had the same repressive government as North Korea and the Soviet Union.  During the 1960s, when Chairman Mao announced his Great Leap Forward, which was intended to take China from a medieval economy to a modern one in around five years, tens of millions of people died because of starvation, torture, slave labor, and execution.  Low estimates say that 40-50 million died.  High estimates say that as many as 75-100 million died.

The Nazis, whom Democrats and Progressives today say were on “right,” were also socialists — that is, people of the Left.  Their full name was the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”  Where Nazi Germany differed from a hardcore communist country like the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea, was that the government didn’t take over all the businesses.  Instead, it allowed businesses to stay in private hands — as long as the government made all economic decisions.

The government in Nazi Germany was still running things and the people had no choice but to go along with the program.  Add in the toxic ingredients of genocidal racism and a desire for world domination, and you have a government engine primed to break from its borders in an orgy of death and destruction. (Here’s a side note that’s become important since Trump became president and the Democrat is convinced he’s a new Hitler: Genocidal racism and a desire for world domination are quite different from Trump’s “America First” policy. His is a traditional idea that holds that a country’s leader should view as his first responsibility the social and economic well-being of his own citizens.)

Modern Europe has been the softest side of socialism.  It lets people have their own businesses and own property, but it keeps services such as health care, railways, and heavy industry (coal mining, steel production) under its control.  It also buries its citizens under regulations.  Every single aspect of life in a modern European socialist country is regulated.

For a long time, Europeans thought they’d found the perfect solution in this “loving” socialism.  Their citizens could run their own businesses and make money, so they had some economic growth.  In addition, in exchange for extremely high taxes, the citizens got “free” medical care (which they’d prepaid with their taxes), low-cost train and bus fares, and good elder care.  It all looked so beautiful in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

What the Europeans conveniently forgot was that, after WWII, it was American money that rebuilt their infrastructure.  This meant that Europeans didn’t have to repay capital investments. Europeans also liked to ignore that, during the entirety of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, America paid Europe’s defense costs.  That made money available for all the free medical care and cheap train fare that Europeans liked to boast about as a sign of their superiority.  Put another way, Europeans didn’t have “free” medical care — they had American-funded medical care.

Maggie Thatcher, who was the conservative Prime Minister in England during the 1980s, famously said “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”  In Europe, American money started vanishing when the Cold War ended.

In addition to losing American money, beginning in the 1990s, Europe has had a few other problems maintaining its “friendly” socialism:

(1) Its population began to age — people in socialist countries tend not to have lots of children — so more people were taking medical care and elder care than were working and paying into the system.

(2) The 2008 recession affected the entire world’s money supply, decreasing drastically the wealth in Europe.

(3) Europe invited in millions of immigrants who were not on board with the social compact that controlled European socialism.

In the years after WWII, Europeans collectively understood that, if everyone worked when young, then everyone would be cared for when sick or old (at least as long as the Americans took care of the defense bill).  The problem was/is that the new immigrants, primarily from Africa and the Middle East, didn’t sign onto this compact.  They came, got welfare, and stayed on welfare, letting the Europeans work for them. Their refusal to join the social compact was made worse by the fact that Muslims have a doctrinal belief that non-Muslims should support them. Europe’s welfare system fed right into this belief.

READ  Probable Cause And A Coup -- RussiaGate Facts Tell A Story (by Wolf Howling)

European socialism is in big trouble now that money is tight, the population is old, and too many free-loading immigrants are continuing to pour in. Moreover, as European citizens try to protest this state of affairs, their formerly “soft” governments are imposing harsh restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly.

By the way, the semi-socialist programs we have, such as Medicare or Social Security, are also running on empty.  The younger generation is just barely paying enough in taxes to keep those programs funding old people.  However, when the generation that’s paying for Medicare and Social Security now ages up to those programs, the best estimate is that there won’t be anything left for them.  As Thatcher knew, government always is a remarkably poor money manager.

The minimum wage isn’t anything to boast about either.  Even the New York Times, before it slipped its moorings, understood that the minimum wage is a way to keep unskilled labor out of the job market entirely.  Rather than paying people a living wage, it means that more people are paid no wage at all, putting further strain on social welfare systems that are barely in funds now.

That’s what socialism is. It puts power in the hands of poor managers who too often abuse that power.  It’s a lousy system and has failed everywhere it’s been tried, whether we’re talking about the Soviet Union, China (which is now trying a weird controlled “market” economy), Cuba, North Korea, Europe, and every failed socialist experiment in Africa.

And what about that “Democratic” part?  Here’s the truth — that word is meaningless.

“Democratic” means that citizens get to vote for their leadership, but it doesn’t say anything about the political system itself.  China styles itself the “People’s Democratic Republic of China,” but no one looks at it and thinks “Wow, that’s a free country because it’s got the word ‘Democratic’ in its name.”

North Korea, the most repressive country in the world, has as its official name “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” Again, as in China, people in North Korea don’t have a right to vote, meaning that it’s a voluntary activity; instead, they are required to vote, or else, and they’d better vote for the people their government has already handpicked as the winners.

During the Soviet Union’s heyday, that nation always liked to boast that it was more “democratic” than America because it had a higher voter turnout on election day.  Somehow it never mentioned that a person who failed to vote could end up in prison or that, when voters showed up, they had about the same number of candidate choices as they had food choices as the grocery store . . . which is to say, none.

And what about the other side of that line . . . the Right side.  On the right side, as long as you don’t stray too far into anarchy, you have small government and individual liberty.  People get to decide what they want to do with their lives.  They get to try to invent, build, serve, sell, buy, work, play, and anything else they please as long as they don’t harm others.  They get to buy what they like when they want to.  Because they are allowed to own their own homes and cars and businesses, they have a stake in the success of each of those endeavors, and they work hard to achieve that success.

A free marketplace isn’t controlled by a government that calls all the shots.  It’s controlled by every person, with their organically combined skills, knowledge, desires, energy, and ambition coming together to create the most prosperous economic engine in the world.  And if you think that’s a bad thing, think again.  Thanks to market-driven First World capitalist energy, people live longer, healthier lives than ever before.  Even poor people in America are rich and successful compared to poor people anywhere else in the world.

Oh!  One other thing:  Totalitarian societies have no social mobility.  Whether the society is a monarchy, aristocracy, military junta, or a socialist “paradise,” you’re either in the ruling party/class or you’re not.  Those with power and wealth hold on to it tightly and scatter just enough food, money, and medical care to the masses to prevent a bloody uprising.

In a market economy, though, not only does a rising tide lift all boats, wealth constantly moves around.  Yesterday’s immigrant may be today’s innovator.  And that rich grandfather might have seen his son waste all the money and his grandchildren become quite poor.

If you figure out how to use the internet well, you may get rich.  On the other hand, if you decide to spend your time smoking pot and playing computer games, you’ll probably be poor (and burn through whatever money Mom and Dad left you in their wills).

I’ll close with a good summation of America’s virtues, for rich and poor alike, back from the 1960s, when the hippies thought they knew it all:

People who make smart choices can rise up; those who don’t . . . well, life can be hard.  But I’d rather live in a world that offers the possibility of success as opposed to a world that keeps everyone firmly down in the mud.

Image Credit: Elizabeth Warren — Caricature by DonkeyHotey. Creative Commons; some rights reserved.

URGENT: SS Administration Announcement Affecting Your Benefits 
 
Due to a change in Social Security regulations that took place on April 30th 2016, you can now add as much as a potential $570 to your monthly benefits… Just by contacting the SS administration and saying ONE simple  word. 

That’s an extra $6,840 a year! 
About Bookworm 1107 Articles
Bookworm came late to conservativism but embraced it with passion. She's been blogging since 2004 at Bookworm Room about anything that captures her fancy -- and that's usually politics. Her blog's motto is "Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts."