Posted by
On the Right on Monday, October 27, 2008 10:18:27 PM
John McCain has finally called Barack Obama's agenda by its proper
name. But if he assumes voters understand what he means when he uses
the word "socialism," he assumes too much.
Read Full Article
Many economists would equate what Obama has in mind with socialism.
Among them is the late F.A. Hayek, a one-time socialist, who wrote a
book on the dangers of socialism titled "The Road to Serfdom." When it
debuted in the final days of WWII, socialism unambiguously meant the
state control of the means of production and central economic planning.
But decades later, in a new preface, the Nobel Prize winner wrote
that "socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution
of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state."
Yes, that's Obama's economic plan.
He concluded that even this softer socialism means reduced economic liberties, opportunities and living standards for all.
Socialism is centralized power. That's why socialist movements,
which often begin as cults of personality, usually end in fascism.
Witness Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism — and, yes, Nazism, which, as
Hayek noted, stands for "National Socialism."
Again, almost every major society that started with socialism has
ended badly. Socialism has been refuted repeatedly, yet that hasn't
stopped neo-Marxists — hiding now behind the title "community
organizer" — from dreaming their dreams of collective sacrifice for
collective good.
They see capitalism with its profit motive as vulgar and immoral
because it's at odds with altruism — the idea that the general welfare
of society is the proper goal of individuals.
Almost every modern-day invention, from lifesaving drugs to computer
software, was inspired by profit, not public welfare. Yet everyone
shares in the greater efficiencies, cost savings, life expectancies and
job opportunities created by the inspiration and perspiration of
money-hungry individuals.
No system in history has created more wealth, per capita, over a shorter time than unbridled American capitalism.
In fact, America has led what economist Angus Maddison calls the
"capitalist epoch" — a 17-decade period in which workers saw their
hours cut in half and life expectancy doubled. In a seminal study last
decade, Maddison calculated the aggregate output and population growth
in the U.S. and 15 other advanced capitalist nations since 1820. He
found a 14-fold explosion in combined per capita product, dwarfing the
living standards of communist and other nations.
Wielding a socialist-inspired cudgel called the Community
Reinvestment Act, government forced banks to make loans to
uncreditworthy minorities who couldn't repay them.
It didn't matter that banks weren't racist. The assumption was they
might be, and it was government's role to enforce "fairness." The same
assumptions are made about the rich.
"The problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the
unemployed are . . . rooted in societal indifference and individual
callousness — the desire among those at the top of the social ladder to
maintain their wealth and status whatever the cost," Obama wrote in his
2006 autobiography. "Solving these problems will require changes in
government policy."
"Was John McCain a socialist when he opposed the Bush tax cuts?" Obama
asks. No, McCain wanted spending cuts first. His motive was fiscal
restraint, not restraint on society's most productive members. Obama
further argues that redistributing wealth to the needy is better than
redistributing it to greedy bankers as the Bush administration has
done. Actually, both policies are wrong, since both favor groups over
individuals.
If Obama wins, he can claim a national mandate for his socialist
agenda. If he gets a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the
Senate, he might get major planks in that radical agenda passed in the
first 100 days. It's shaping up as a battle between those who create
wealth and those who loot it.