Socialism vs Capitalism... Revolution or Evolution Part 3
The 20th and 21rst century 1901-present day ( The United States)
In parts 1 and 2 of this piece we trimmed the fat so to speak by correcting some misconceptions about who, what, where, and when concerning both capitalism and socialism. We also clarified the definitions of many words that have long been used to muddy peoples understanding of what these two socioeconomic systems actually are, by spreading disinformation about how they actually work.
Part 3 is going to be a little different because parts 1 and 2 were our lead in for the century that saw many, many changes across the globe. A truly pivotal point in our evolution as not only a society, but as a species as well. In this part, we are going to cut the meat from the bone as we take a look at these two embattled systems. I have also decided that due to length I am adding a part 4. In part three we will focus on the socioeconomics and their impact on our society as a whole. Part 4 will get into the other side of things from the human stand point IE, forms of socialism and their toll on humanity. We will also look at that new thread I mentioned that delayed publishing this part. Socialism success stories, or so they claim. Once I started digging into this I came up with some very interesting data.
I did this because I really want to make sure people understand the impact our mixed economy has had on the global economy and how that has improved peoples lives over the course of the twentieth century and into today. It really is quite astounding just how far the US has come in a mere 241 years.
I think its clear that I myself support the free market economy and individual freedom over the collectivism and oppression of socialism. The rest of this piece contains the reasons why I support it based on a no nonsense look at the data, not the disinformation that many people believe to be the truth.
So, lets get started.
The very first thing we need to clarify is the very wrong claim that the US is a total market economy, or pure capitalist. The United States is a mixed economy. We have a pretty workable balance between socialism and the free market. The biggest problem we have concerning free market capitalism in the US, is not the system itself, it works very well if people would just stop trying to manipulate it for their own gain. (Monetary or Political) There are no total market economies anywhere in the world so the term is irrelevant for our purposes. There are also no total social economies (pure welfare states) in the world either so that means by default that every developed country in the world to one degree or another utilizes free market capitalism in their economic structure. Mixed economies.
Now its important to realize though that money is not the real issue here, its only part of the story which all comes down to the perception of inequality. The left believes primarily in EQUALITY OF OUTCOME, or Marxism. The right believes primarily in EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, or the free market. These could also be evaluated under the term profit vs plunder. Now since the US is a mixed economy, it strives to maintain a balance between these two concepts. Back in part 2 we saw that this was the original and mutual goal of those who supported free market capitalism, and those who supported socialism. Way back when all of this started the brains knew that a mixed economy was the only one that would really work. And we can see today that they were absolutely right. This cooperation for the greater good was later derailed by the radical ideologies of Karl Marx and his conflict theory based socialism. (we will get into this in part 4)
I could easily drop a thousand words or so explaining how all of this works in depth, but instead I am going to let Prof. Antony Davies explain it. I always thought I had a pretty good understanding myself but this short lecture gave me clarity that I did not even know I was missing. After watching it, everyone should walk away with a whole new perspective on the claims of inequality.
So in essence, over the last couple of generations peoples lives have greatly been improved, incomes are better, education is better (this depends on how you look at it in my opinion), quality of life is better, and just about anything the rich can have, so can everyone else, although it may be a less valuable version of said item, we can still have the item itself. The three class system meaning lower, middle, and upper class is in no way static, it is quite fluid as the data shows with the movement of people through them. This is a continuing cycle that constantly replenishes the work force with younger people as the last generation moves up and eventually retires.
But wait a minute.
The Marxists say we are in a horrendous state of inequality, NOT! We are more equal now then we have ever been in our modern history.
They say that the world poverty level is reaching epidemic proportions, NOT! If the current trend continues as the data shows, global poverty could be eliminated all together in just a few more centuries..
They say the middle class is being destroyed and disappearing, NOT! They are moving up because they are getting wealthier, right along with the lower class. (or at least the ones willing to work for it are).
They say that everyone is equal, period, NOT! and double NOT!
This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard, because (Reality Check) people are not equal. I could spend a lot of time proving my point with this but I do not have to. The Marxists themselves prove my point for me. If people were truly all equal, there would be no need to create an equality of outcome in the first place now would there? Just sayin.
So where does that leave us? Well, the United States is 241 years old, we are still a very young country that is still working out the kinks in our system. We have obviously learned from many of our mistakes and just as obviously taken tremendous steps to correct them. The data shows this to be true.
So, lets take a quick look at how capitalism works since it was the driving force that made these changes possible.
So lets review. We live in a country, the United States, that was founded on the concepts of individual freedom. We have a constitution that guarantees us that individual freedom under federal law. Our mixed economy allows that individual freedom to exist while still providing social programs to help those who NEED it. Democracy guarantees us equality of opportunity, and we control the money we earn.
I like it.
Is it perfect? Nope. But what is?
And in my mind, a damn sight better than the alternative where we lose most or all of those things. On a personal note as a working class man. I could care less about having control over the means of production, I like having and want to continue having control over the money that I earn. He who controls the money, will always be the one in control of everything. Besides, having control over a factory say is meaningless when under imminent domain the government can seize control of it any time that they want to. Its a lie.
One of the saddest things about this argument that I see all of the time in clips like the following, is that so many of these mislead young people are supporting a system that will have a life changing impact on them. Yet they have no understanding of what it actually is.
In the 19th century things were pretty bad for workers, but they were still improved from the 18th century. In the 20th century there was a massive movement towards establishing regulations for workers rights, wage and income standards, workplace safety, and the development of unions to protect the rights these regulations would bestow upon those workers. The unions gave these people a powerful voice that accomplished some great things. We as a country recognized the problem and as with the economic side, we began the process of fixing it.
So lets compare what workers had for rights, benefits and protections at the end of the 19th century, and what rights, benefits and protections they have today. The Marxists say we need equality of outcome in order to really improve things for the working class. According to the data though, we need to keep right on going like we have been because it is working.
Average hours worked per week in 1901 was around 52 hours, by 1999 the average work week had been set at 40 hours.
In 1901 child labor was widely used since well, workers really had no rights at that time so their children needed to work in order for the family to survive. By 1999 child labor had been eradicated In the United States, but sadly the practice continues in many countries around the world.
In 1900, per capita income (in 1999 dollars) was $4,200; it was about $33,700 in 1999. The average hourly pay of manufacturing production workers in 1999 was $13.90; in 1909, the first measured year, it was about $3.80 (in 1999 dollars.)
During the beginning of the 20th century there were relatively few minorities (including women) in the manufacturing work force due primarily to discrimination. Non whites (all other than white) only made up around 14% of the labor force. Around 3 million people. By 1999 black people alone reached 16 million making up 12% of the work force. Women only made up around 19% of the work force in 1900 as opposed to 60% of the work force by 1999. I do not know about ya'll but that seems like quite an improvement to me. And since we see this improvement it means that discrimination in our country was also in decline. Otherwise it would not have happened right?
Workplace safety improved dramatically during the 20th century. Almost 1,500 workers were killed in coal mine accidents in 1900. However, in 1999, the figure was just 35. And it was not only coal mines that saw this tremendous improvement. There were 2,550 railroad workers killed in 1900, compared with 56 in 1999. (industries chosen based on available data)
If an employee was injured on the job in 1900, their only recourse for compensation was to sue the employer for damages. These lawsuits were generally unsuccessful. It is estimated that at that time only 15 percent of workers injured on the job were successful in obtaining any damages under the current law. By 1999, there were a number of government programs that assisted those injured on the job. Long-term disability payments, Worker’s Compensation, and other provisions in statute or contracts provided protection for the worker in 1999 that did not exist in 1900.
Unemployment was a runaway rollercoaster during the 20th century but by 1999 it had dropped its average from 5% at the beginning to 4.2% at the end. Length of lay offs have also dropped significantly.
Much of this was due to the labor movement and formation of unions.
Now we have to stop a minute and remember that all of the advances in quality of life, equality, workers rights and workplace safety, benefits, for not only US citizens but globally. Have happened even though the US fought 2 world wars and several other wars, numerous recessions and of course the stock market crash and subsequent great depression. Despite all of this, the data shows a steady and escalating improvement in just about every area that the Marxists are screaming about. So why are they screaming to begin with?
How is that possible? How can we have all of those things going on and still rise to the top?
Evolution can not be stopped, but it can be restricted, or slowed down by the actions of the people themselves. Evolution by definition is the gradual move from something less complex into something more complex. I believe that we can all agree that our socioeconomic system in the US has become more complex than it was when we lived as a communal society before the Neolithic era. I think we can all also agree that that system itself has become more and more complex since it developed naturally to meet the needs of our growing population and ever increasing intelligence. We are evolving as a species, and as we do we will need a socioeconomic system that evolves with us. Marxism does not evolve, it causes the natural path of evolution to stagnate because it eliminates the individual freedom needed for people to improve their station in life. If every one gets the same, no one can move up.
Now socialism is is by definition a far less complex system than is free market capitalism. Moving from a more complex system into a less complex system would of course be regression, not progress.
So, many of those on both sides of this issue claim that it is all because of them and the other side is wrong and needs to go. Look people, our country did not really start to progress on the large scale until we combined these two systems into the MIXED economy that has evolved into what we use today. Everything in this universe is held together by one simple word, balance.
We have as close to a balance as we will probably ever see right now in our current melding of socialism and free market capitalism. But you know what. In my mind the problem really starts because the socialism we use in our mixed economy... is not Marxism... its socialism. We always have to remember that both communism and socialism were around long before Karl Marx came along and created his bastardized version of both. We as a country implemented TRUE socialism into our structure.
It is the philosophy held by the socialists that came before Marx and believed even back then as mentioned before that a mixed economy would be the only one that would work. They understood that our society was evolving into a natural balance that would eventually find its equilibrium all on its own. They also understood that evolution would take many centuries to happen. That is why they built a structure that would best serve those who were unable to provide for themselves while still allowing free market capitalism to create the wealth that would be needed to support a world with far more people to feed in the future. Their goal was truly humanitarian because they were actually concerned about providing for the less fortunate in our society. This does not mean illegal immigrants, lay abouts, criminals, and economic migrants. Their concern was for the elderly, the sick, the disabled, and the young. People who may be incapable of providing for themselves. That is what socialism is meant to be. A protection for those who are truly vulnerable within the inequality that is necessary for capitalism to succeed in its goal of creating the wealth needed by future generations.
Marxists are radicals, they believe that people have to be forced into following their ideology. They deny this claim but within the same breath they cry for revolution. What is a revolution if not a means to force people into changing the way they live their lives. Force and coercion rarely lead to good things. It seems we would have learned this lesson by now from history but that's the problem. These young people today have never been taught the history they would need in order to make that connection. It has been removed from our schools and replaced with a politically correct (meaning wrong) version of history.
This is a no brainer here. If a government entity removes factual history and replaces it with an alternative and incorrect version in order to advance a political agenda, as is happening in our public schools today. That's called indoctrination. In a nut shell, the Marxists could never draw enough people to their cause in the past because well, my generation, and the baby boomers remember the horrors that came about because of Marx and his conflict theory socialism. We saw and heard about it first hand so we took a major pass on what they were selling. We know better than to fall for that line of crap through our own experiences. This left the Marxists with only one option. They would have to manufacture the people they needed to grow their numbers. To accomplish this they began a coordinated attack on the most vulnerable of our society. They attacked our children, stole whatever identity they would have developed on their own, and replaced it with the mentality they needed for their goals.
What they needed were large numbers of people who did not hold those memories of the former Soviet Union and others who in the name of "socialism" collectively murdered over 100 million of their own people as they seized, and continuously needed to maintain their control and power. They need an unaware and compliant citizenry that they could lead around like so many sheep.
For this, they looked to the words of Adolph Hitler. "Give me control over the textbooks, and I will control the state." Well, their working on just that right now. With the exception of those in this new generation who only through the intervention of their parents I am assuming, maintained their ability to use critical thinking and see through this crap, we now have millions of radicalized, entitled, victimized, and very nasty young people tearing our country apart at the behest of those in government who seek the destruction of all of the progress we have made thus far.
Lets end with another Nazi quote that was found above a gas chamber in Auschwitz. Read this, think about what many in this new generation are like today, and see if you can make the same connection I have.
“I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience, morality...We will train young people before whom the whole world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence, imperious, relentless, cruel.”
And then ask yourself why the Marxists in the US claim to be anti-fascists, but are following the playbook of the greatest fascists that ever lived.
Is all of this really about what's best for the citizenry of our country, or is it really about having absolute control over that citizenry? The latter in my mind is the answer but we will all have to make our own decisions on that. I simply provide information, what anyone decides to do with that information, is 100% up to them.
Step away from the noise.
Workplace Safety and Workers Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqDtCWXW8sw (On Inequality)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZSq_zZ5VrQ (A lecture by Professor of economics Thomas Dilorenzo on millennials and socialism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YULdjmg3o0 (An explanation of what economics really is)