I suppose the simplistic way to look at socialism from the perspective of a working citizen would be to say, ‘In return for some or all basic needs, for life, the citizen of a socialistic society turns over his, or her, working life, to the state for whatever compensation the state deems just–and for what purpose they see as necessary. Compensation would be defined as a living wage during one’s productive time to include everything necessary to be efficient at work, at home, and in leisure time, in addition, to providing some standard of living during growth years, and beyond the productive years into some kind of retirement standard until death.’

There are probably as many kinds of socialism as there could be forms of governing systems. Bearing in mind the ultimate socialistic government on the extreme right, which is what the leftist ideologues like to refer to as fascism. But then the rightist ideologues are just as fond of referring to the extreme left as fascists as well. The idea being that, when the socialistic road is traveled to the extreme in either direction it must ultimately lead to the same place. Anarchy.

Ideally though, what a socialist system hopes to attain would be a government run state which exercises its power based on the needs of its citizens. Therein lies the problem. The first question raised pertains to the extent to which its people are willing to relinquish individual rights and freedoms in order to allow the government its power over them. Following that dilemma to its conclusion would involve extensive regulation of how, and to whom, the people give the power to correct excesses by the government. That’s where the idea of the left or right ‘fascist’ system of government usually comes into focus. Whether you consider Stalin or Hitler your fascist of choice, you end up with the same unwanted end.

A government which has been given the authority to carry out its own supervision of itself, which is to say the government speaks for the people, is what we have come to refer to as a communist society. The people, as individuals, have no say in how they are to be educated, what their ultimate purpose for the state will be (their jobs), or how their basic needs for survival are delivered. Everything pertaining to their productivity for the state is determined for them in whatever form of selection process the state determines is essential.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. This is the Marxist Socialist mantra. Another way to interpret it would be to say, ‘the more you produce the more the economy and the government can provide for those who are unable to produce or who won’t, for one reason or another.

We have come to see communism as the harshest form of socialism for the fact of its being the system in which the average citizen must give up the most of his or her freedoms. But the key distinguishing factor of any form of socialism remains that of the average citizen giving up certain freedoms and rights in order to achieve the harmony the state-run government purports to provide.

Some will say it is only semantics which defines the difference between a free society and a socialistic society. After all, freedoms and rights are limited in either form, is that not so? But it is, in reality, how those freedoms and rights are disposed of, which determines the kind of society we choose to govern us. In socialism, the rights of the majority take precedence over the rights of the individual. In a free society, the rights of the individual are the dominant force determining the rule of law. It would seem to be a moot point to anyone but a lawmaker or an attorney because isn’t the final determination in law to protect the average citizen, regardless of the type of society?

Well, maybe not. Going back to our example of a communistic society being the harshest form of socialism, it wouldn’t be difficult to imagine a situation where the government has wrested from its citizens the power of enforcement beyond what the original intent of the force-of-law was meant by its citizens to be. Think of what Joseph Stalin did to the Marxist socialism in Russia and you have a very real portrait of how oppressive a society intended to protect its citizens can become. Socialism can easily be argued on that level as being a system of government that can only be enforced, it cannot be nurtured.

It might occur to some that a society, attempting to modify itself, as in the case of the United States of America, should structure itself on the basis of becoming a socialistic-democracy. The ideal being, a state that looks first at the rights of its individuals, as with our Bill of Rights, intending to define guarantees for each individual, and secondarily to the necessary fundamental safety and health of its citizens as a whole. Unfortunately, it is the distinction, or lack of it, between these two things that is repeatedly putting the system in jeopardy, most particularly by those who strongly favor the emphasis on the socialistic-democracy side of the scale.

How does one make this point clearly enough to beg the argument in favor of the individuals rights? Some clarity of the conflicting nature of the separate but necessary rights must be protected for the individual-systems needs to exist instead of the smudging of the lines of apparent similarities. A democracy considers first the weight of the majority before it can think about the individuals rights.

Eventually, and sooner than later, the discussion must direct itself to the question of whether or not a clearly true , financially explainable economic basis could ever stand up as proven theory for socialistic economic law. Economic premise doesn’t traditionally stand out as a strong point of socialism and its effect versus any strong economy such as a free-trade government. But it could certainly be one of the points to be argued. The true question which should be asked therefore, is whether socialism has any other weapons besides regulation of industry to increase competition, and as a result profits, like incentives to reward profitable companies for using local citizens rather than going overseas to insure cheap enough labor to build something profitable at a decent price.

 The often tried government takeovers of failing businesses large enough to effect the socialist economies is the major flaw in socialism. Their familiarity with profitable business is always flawed because of the fact they are far more dependent on regulation and quotas, which demand performance without reward and are a definite negative rather than a positive.

Free market industries open to hiring and raising profits through incentive based measures at every level of the business model promote real rewards financially and establish long term success, an obvious positive for such governments as the United States has always been. This is not to say free market industry should be left alone and not regulated to some extent, but certainly there are many things which so burden business and industrial health in social governments that running a business on a profitable basis is virtually impossible.

The major deterrent to democratic-socialism’s effectiveness in the industrial world has to do with unionizing the work force with the idea of having a stronger voice in benefit s for individuals who wouldn’t otherwise have a say in the wage scale. Without fail, wages seem to rise periodically with no other purpose than the contracts expiration. Eventually prices for the industry must go up to keep up with the rising payroll, which in turn creates another round of contract talks. At the same time affected satellite industries experience the same cost increases which eventually price the industry out of the market.

The more control over business the government maintains the more the industry is forced into this strategy of self destruction.

When one can begin to understand the eventual need of socialistic governments to regulate and control virtually everything under its protective shield it becomes almost a given that soon enough the regulation and control extends to the individuals the social government is supposed to shield.

Understanding that the United States of America is a republic (under God) and was established by men who understood that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights gave certain powers to the Republic itself (the federal government), and the remaining powers to the states of the Republic, and is fundamental and inviolate. Those powers of the Federal government were not intended to usurp the powers of the states, but to facilitate them and to protect them from attack by another country, and from dangers from within which might put one State at cross purposes with another, as well as might put the health and safety of any citizen of the Republic at risk.

The Bill of Rights established for each citizen of the Republic those inalienable rights given, not by the Federal government, only protected by it, what any judicious man could clearly understand were from God (the Creator).

The commerce of such a republic gives to the states the immediate task of making such commerce safe from unscrupulous individuals and insuring the legal right to conduct this commerce among and with other states of the union as well as foreign entities (with the assistance of the republic). Disputes of commerce between states were necessarily given to the republican government to deal with in an unbiased manner to insure no state being given an unfair advantage over another and further to assure the safety and health of each state.

I invite anyone to further clarify my argument or to dispute it with a better one from either position. But please give me your input. I believe we are in a fight at this point in the history of the United States for the kind of government we hope to have and people should understand what the real choices are. Forget Democrat or Republican and think about the system of government you believe you want and are willing to commit yourself to.

D. Kenneth Ross