I would contend that no matter what "philosophy" one adopts ... be it socialism, capitalism or a blend of the two, the results will not be predicated upon the system itself, but of the people within the system, both leadership and the common individual, and the collective of society.
In other words, there is no "right system", only "right people". And socialism is no more immune to corruption and the resulting degradation of the system than is capitalism.
Given the various predispositions of human beings ... to include the honest and hard working, to the exceptionally wise and unselfish, all the way to the dishonest, greedy and conniving ... and various degrees in between ... it's the constant balance of those opposing forces of good and bad that will determine if a "ideological system" promotes and achieves good or bad outcomes.
I would call upon history as the proof of that, given the disastrous outcomes of so many socialist states we have as examples. While at the same time, we see the extreme negatives that can be produced under so called "capitalism", simply by observing the conditions now taking form in the US.
Socialists could rightly point to certain modern Scandinavian socialist countries and their achievements which greatly exceed the results we see in the US by a fairly wide margin, as proof of socialism's superiority, but it would be an error to jump to such a conclusion, no matter how reasonable such a thought might seem. Solutions must fit the scale of the problems, and applying the same methods that might produce great results in a country of 8 Million people, may be a total disaster applied to a country of 300+ Million.
The first point here is, it's always easier to manage a small group than a large one. This is true whether you are dealing with a business, or a nation. The citizens have a much easier time of it policing and monitoring and making changes to their "City Council" than they are going to have dealing with the United States Congress ... the smaller the beast, the easier to tame, the larger the beast the greater the danger. As the old adage suggests, a government given the power to provide everything, also has the power to take everything away.
The second most important element of any system are the relative levels of education, wisdom and values of its citizenry, particularly as that might facilitate the citizenry's close monitoring of it's leadership and their conduct, ensuring such conduct is consistent with the best interests of those citizens. This is far easier to achieve on a smaller scale, than a larger one, both in terms of sound leadership successfully promoting overall equity in the system, as well as the political organization and effectiveness of the citizenry ensuring that leadership doesn't stray from it's commitment to that goal.
This reality is the singularly greatest argument against the fundamental philosophy of "socialism" and it's statist underpinnings. What seems to work so well for Finland, for example, was an unmitigated nightmare in the former Soviet Union. In this case, size really does matter
and the larger the nation, the less likely "Socialism" can fulfill it's promises.
We see this clearly unfolding in the United States, as decade to decade the power of the individual states has slowly been usurped by an ever growing bureaucratic federal beast that no longer serves the best interests of the citizenry, and is made up largely of the dishonest, corrupt minions of the power elite. This beast has grown too large and too powerful for the citizenry to command, which now subjugates rather than serves. Handing more power to that beast in the form of socialistic mechanisms is shear suicidal, regardless of what is working in Sweden or Finland.
The one guarantee, regardless of system, is the ever present threat of the greedy, corrupt, service to self individuals capturing the roles of leadership, because that is precisely the roles most sought by such types. Leadership is power ... power to do good, and power to do bad. Ironically, the honest, service to others oriented individual who is best suited to leadership roles are the least likely to seek such positions, and do so only out of a sense of selflessness and desire to serve, and only when encouraged. It is the corrupt, greedy, and power hungry that strive for such positions, and will eventually capture those leadership roles if permitted to by the collective citizenry. That's precisely the reason why those who embrace small, limited federal government power, and the preeminence of State autonomy are absolutely on the right track ... the smaller the beast, the easier to control by the people.
This is also why it is imperative that we collectively reject and defeat the push toward Progressive Socialism coming from the left here in the United States ... not because Socialism is so inherently bad or so much worse than what we have now, only that it will facilitate the further advancement of what we see unfolding now. This includes the plan of "Globalism", and globalist desires for a "One World Government". The globalists are achieving great strides in advancing toward their goals of world government under the pretext of moving further left toward progressive socialism. Should we allow them to be successful, the results can only be expected to render a "Soviet Union" style monster on steroids, which will facilitate a level of tyranny never before seen in human history, having no resemblance to the forms of socialism seen in Scandinavia.
This really is plain, old fashioned common sense. When the government fears the people, you have liberty, and when the people fear government you have tyranny. Which of these conditions is most likely to be realized by a powerful central government which controls all aspects of society?
Rational thought, and practical reality are the greatest enemies of progressive socialism. A clear mind capable of critical thought and free of ideological dogma can easily see the false promises underlying progressive socialism's covert agenda of achieving absolute State power over the people. And absolute power always does what? It absolutely corrupts, and inevitably produces mass suffering under it's merciless elitist leaders. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, just to name a few, are the inevitable consequence of succumbing to such childlike fantasies of a Utopian society so long as basic human nature includes such tyrannical types within it's midst.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
