Skip to main content

How Socialism Works

James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with four non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.



The Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is what distinguishes a free country. Every law restricts individual freedom to a certain degree by altering the means people may use in the pursuit of their aims, but within these rules the individual should be free to pursue his personal desires.

In a free country, the Rule of Law does not apply only to particular persons. It is intended only to be instrumental to the pursuit of various individual ends. It is intended for long periods of time, so it is impossible to know if it will assist some people more than others. It helps people predict the behavior of those with whom they must collaborate, but it does not aid the effort of particular persons.

In other words, the Rule of Law is blind. It does not know in advance which individual it will assist; it does not choose between particular persons or particular ends. It serves to create new opportunities for all, but the precise results remain unseen. This is what it means for legislation to be impartial.

Socialism is the opposite of this, as it requires collectivist planning, which is not confined to providing opportunities for unknown people. On the contrary, Socialism aims to serve the needs of particular persons, and as such must choose between them whom to benefit through the use of laws or regulations. It must decide whose needs have the most merit. It is socially and politically difficult to arbitrarily decide who gets what share of the national income. Inequality will always exist that will appear unjust to those who suffer from it.



Central Planning

The central political problem of Socialism is that in planning the entire economic life of a state, politicians or bureaucrats must decide the due station of individuals and groups. If the coercive power of the state decides the outcomes of persons, the only power worth having will be the power of the state. Under Socialism, the ruling elite will have complete control over the stations and outcomes of each individual in society.

No Socialist movement that admitted its goal was equal outcomes for all citizens has ever gained legitimate support, because even the uneducated can usually see that absolute equality for all, will require the government to have massive control over everybody’s lives. Therefore Socialists have attenuated their message to “greater equality” or “let’s take from the rich and give to the poor.”

A Socialist planner must decide how much of each product is to be produced, how much it is worth, and how much the workers are worth. But what are just prices and just wages, and who decides? Such a planner must decide the relative importance of different groups and persons.

When a government directly aims toward the advancement of some people over others, it is no longer impartial. It takes sides, imposes its evaluations upon the citizenry, and instead of assisting all people in the pursuit of their chosen ends, it chooses their ends for them. It ceases to be instrumental, and it becomes an instrument used by the government upon people, by imposing its views in regard to moral questions.



How Socialism Works

Socialism aims to have the government decide how many pigs will be bred and raised; it determines how many buses will be run, which coalmines to operate, and what the price of shoes will be. As these types of decisions cannot be made from formal principles and settled for long periods of time; they will depend on temporary circumstances.

These decisions will invariably favor or disfavor the interests of one group or another. In the end somebody will have to decide whose interests are most important, and as those decisions become the law of the land, a new distinction of rank is imposed on the people by the coercive apparatus of the government.

Socialism aims to decide the wages of doctors and nurses, who gets what health care, which crops are planted, what diet people can have, what land may or may not be used for, who can hunt and who can fish, who you may hire for employment and the working conditions and wages you will provide—nothing short of a complete system of values in which the wants of every person or group is assigned a value from above. Of course this will be couched in the word “fairness.



Blind Justice

The Rule of Law safeguards equality before the law, which is the opposite of the use of the law by Socialists. Any activity by governments deliberately aimed at material equality of different people, and any policy aimed at redistribution or Social Justice, leads to the destruction of the Rule of Law.

To produce the same result for different people is necessarily to treat them differently, because blind justice never produces equality in the outcomes of people’s lives.

It makes no matter if the law says we must all drive on the right or left side of the road. What matters is that the law applies the same to everybody and enables us to predict the behavior of others.

There is no doubt that Central Planning involves deliberate discrimination between the particular needs of different people.

Scroll to Continue

Socialism is not above circumventing the law by granting legislative powers to various agencies and boards that make their own laws outside the legislative process; laws that are then renamed “regulations.” These agencies are endowed with almost unlimited discretion in regulating this or that activity of the people. This was exactly the situation in Germany when Hitler came to power and he completed its advancement to totalitarianism.




Totalitarian regimes are preceded by the suppression of Democracy, in response to the demand for quick and determined government action. In times of trouble, it is the man or party who seems strong and resolute enough to get things done who has the greatest appeal. A potential dictator knows that he can easily sway and arouse the passions of the gullible and the docile by using the lowest common denominator to unite the greatest number of people. This dictator must be a skillful demagogue, who can tap into envy of those better off than others.

The actual practice of true Socialism is everywhere totalitarian. But still there are those who dream of dividing all the wealth in the world equally among all persons. If the state is independent and superior to the individual, only those individuals who share the same beliefs and work toward the same ends will be considered part of the community.



The Power of the State

Individuals who identify with groups do so because of feelings of inferiority. Reinhold Niebuhr said, “There is an increasing tendency among modern men to imagine themselves ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger and larger groups.”

Success under Socialism depends on access to political power, as individuals are deprived of the powers they naturally possess under Capitalism, which have been transferred to the state. A Socialist planning board member possesses far more power than the most successful member of a Capitalist society.

The separation of economic and political power that is the essential guarantee of freedom is eliminated by Socialism. Socialism creates a degree of dependence barely distinguishable from slavery. Socialism denies all morals through its supreme principle that the ends justify the means.

In the eyes of the Socialist there is nothing prohibited by conscience if it serves the good of the state. Cruelty may become a duty; the killing of the old, sick, or unborn should be treated as mere matters of expediency. There is a greater goal these acts serve, which justifies them.

Thus the positions of power in a Socialist society hold little attraction for those with moral beliefs such as those that have guided Western peoples in the past. But while it is unlikely that the morally upright will aspire to lead a Socialist movement, there are special opportunities for the unscrupulous and ruthless. There will be the need for bad actions, such as cruelty, intimidation, deception, and spying, which those who are moral will be reluctant to perform. The readiness to do these bad things will be the path to promotion.

It Depends on What the Meaning of Is Is

Socialism is directed toward a single system of ends, and for it to succeed everybody must serve this system. People must accept and believe in the official values of the state. Beliefs will be chosen for people and imposed upon them by various forms of propaganda. Respect for human life, for the weak, and for the individual, must be abolished. Socialism requires the destruction of all morals in order to undermine the foundation of all morals: the truth.

In order to subvert the truth, Socialism must first pervert the language—change the meaning of words, in particular the meaning of the words “justice” “equality” and “rights.” This change in the meaning of words confuses people. It is sometimes known as “baffle them with bullshit.”

Gradually words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, often denoting the opposite of traditional meanings, chosen solely for the emotional associations people have of them. The whole apparatus for disseminating information—schools, the press, television, motion pictures, games, amusements—will be used to spread those views that will strengthen Socialist authority.

Information that may cause doubt will be suppressed. The search for truth will not be allowed. The authorities will decide what ought to be published or taught—even about subjects that appear to have no political significance.

The word “truth” itself must be cast doubt upon. It will no longer represent something to be discovered, but something decided upon by authority, and believed in for the sake of unity.

The loss of the meaning of truth, the abolition of the spirit of inquiry, and contempt for intellectual liberty, will make every branch of knowledge fall under political authority. Socialism claims the right for a group of elites to determine what people ought to think or believe. It deprecates the value of intellectual freedom. In a totalitarian state, the state and society are identical.


My research sources for this article are Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Communism by Richard Pipes.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 30, 2012:

Alexander Mark— You are welcome. Thank you for coming back by to re-engage. Pilate is a fascinating figure, to be sure.

The Medved book I recently polished off is outstanding and highly recommended even though it is not new (1992).

It was Marcuse and his Frankfort School that plotted the destruction of America and Western Civilization to be replaced with worldwide communism—officially atheistic. I explain this further in my Hub:

You are right that those who wish to habitually practice homosexual behaviors are not nearly staisfied with "tolerance" by the definition of that word. They demand praise and glorification of their lifestyle which requires a bold rebuke to God Himself.

I appreciate your gracious compliments. It is always a distinct pleasure to hear from you.


Alexander Silvius from Portland, Oregon on March 25, 2012:

Funny you mentioned Pilate asking the loaded question, "what is truth?" That one fascinates me as well. On the one hand he is being flippant, and more so he is defending himself with vain philosophy (the first progressive?). But would he have been defending himself if he didn't feel the weight of his own conscience? And of course there is a smidgen of truth in his words as most human beings face this question at some point in their lives. The answer defines your eternal existence. I feel sympathy for him on one hand, because I think he was faced with the decision to believe in God and salvation and if he did so, he would have to throw everything he had away right there. On the other hand, he is one of the worst men in history because he allowed an innocent man to take the blame of a murderer and to bear the burden of that mark for an entire nation of people. Not to mention the weight of the world's sin.

I realize that's off topic, but I can see the almost spiritual roots of progressive liberalism in that scene.

Unfortunately, I have never read Medved's books. I love that he is a conservative who has his finger on the pulse of culture and entertainment - and he is so right on.

Thank you for bringing Marcuse to my attention, I had no idea this man had created the template for what the liberal movement is growing into. It drives me nuts because in high school they drilled this tolerance and non-violence garbage into us, but what progressives have become is not the same philosophy they pretend to believe in. It is a slap in the face to read what his version of tolerance is.

But people accept that version. I have some gay acquaintances that get offended if I say I don't accept their orientation but I believe in tolerance and that they are free to do as they please. They take the idea of tolerance to mean that they are not accepted as a whole person. Since when has tolerance become a bad thing? That quote explains it all.

As always, I learn a little more everytime you put your fingers to the keyboard. I'm going to search your hubs to see if you've written about Herbert Marcuse.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 22, 2012:

Alexander Mark— You are quite welcome, brother. I very much enjoy your commentaries. I can almost see your wheels in motion. Economic Freedom is the foundation of all Freedoms. It encompasses Capitalism, Free Enterprise, and Free Markets.

I might go with "The Truth" as the title of my book. I have long been fascinated by Pilate asking Jesus, "What is Truth?" This, of course, after Jesus explained his mission: To Bear Witness to the Truth.

That is how I see my mission; to tell the Truth, and answer Pilate's question for postmodern American readers.

You go ahead and publish the "Aviator." I will read it straightaway.

Funny you should mention Michael Medved as the very book I am reading at present is his "Hollywood versus America." What a great book it is too.

This is dynamite that you wrote:

"The liberal elite have brought this country to a place where they will have their way because they forced their thinking down the throats of empty minds so that they in turn can force capitalism to ruin, and naturally everyone that's left will scream for socialism as the only logical repair."

Splendid analysis!

And as you said so succinctly, "those people that have swallowed the lie, are its most adamant defenders. You cannot get very far presenting a reasonable argument to a college student who has been fed and now believes in his liberal education, without receiving a hostile verbal response."

Indeed. Whenever I encounter utter hostility over politics it always come from the New Left—the supposedly "tolerant" crowd. This follows the beliefs of the Father of the New Left, Herbert Marcuse, who said:

"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."

Marcuse further explained: "Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care."

In other words, Free Speech must be denied to people who disagree with the wants of the New Left, which Marcuse, a Marxist who advocated political violence, was its chief articulator. From him and his acolytes comes all the subversive movements that have so damaged America since the 1970s, Relativism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Social Justice, Inclusiveness, Tolerance, Speech Codes on campi, Affirmative Action, and Hate Speech.

Thank you for engaging. Great to have dialogue with you.

Peace, Love, Dove!


Alexander Silvius from Portland, Oregon on March 18, 2012:

It's interesting that in order for people to accept the lie that we need "experts" to tell us what is best, they have to be lied to from the beginning and have knowledge withheld from them in the first place. But the irony is that those people that have swallowed the lie, are its most adamant defenders. You cannot get very far presenting a reasonable argument to a college student who has been fed and now believes in his liberal education, without receiving a hostile verbal response. I suppose this is an excellent example of the Stockholm Syndrome you mentioned.

It makes me think of how victimized I feel when I know some famous personality or well-off young person has only achieved his status because he had the opportunity handed him by his parents and their resources. But therein is the lie - why should I be angry at them? I should be angry at the elitists who have worked very hard to put people like me in their place via a substandard education system. I don't blame all my woes on, "the system," I have made my own share of idiotic mistakes, but the perpetration of liberal values severely damages independent personalities - people who can't help but run their own race rather than running with the herd. The rest are fooled into believing they are living the good life, or at least that there is no other way.

I am a perfect example of someone who is trying very hard to shake the untruths they heap upon us. It has taken me a long time to understand that America is a capitalist country, and that thought alone gives me hope that I have a place in this world. I don't mean to talk about myself although I do like to go on sometimes, but I think that my perception of the world represents most of my peers and younger if not older as well (when was the Bible and prayer pulled out of school?).

What you said about risk-taking is very profound - at least to me. I often feel an unfounded guilt when I want to make a decision that puts my income or living circumstances at risk even when that decision has a high potential of reward. That guilt comes from the feeling of wasting resources - I think that's the European in me talking. But that same sentiment can be heard from most Americans who won't even have sex without advice from a doctor. It's the idea that we need to prevent problems before they arise by destroying any initiative that could possibly cause it. Such as punishing the innocent before the offense or crime is committed like the idea of speed governors on our cars because it will reduce accidents. You can probably think of 10 more examples right off the top of your head.

I am seriously still considering buying a piece of land and plopping a mobile home on it - and paying cash for it all. It's stunning to hear all the protests against that idea, like I'm Jeremiah Johnson (my hero) or something. People feel that going in debt for a house is more secure! There are benefits and negatives to both but the flaw in logic occurs when people think that going into debt for 20 - 30 years and having to be dependent on a job where you are controlled day in and day out is more secure and a healthier way to live. Not for everyone!

I now hear often that capitalism is only greed and that it only (notice the single-view sentiment, "only") succeeds by creating a lack of availability - artificial demand. This may be true for many corporations and businesses, but it is only because the rest of us behave and perceive the world as socialists, that someone else will take care of our needs. There is no, "let the buyer beware," attitude because we are all being led to believe we can trust the car dealer and we have to have a new car that breaks down after 5 years. And so on.

The reason I don't believe the progressive angle on capitalism is the same reason I remain skeptical that socialism is inherently evil as an economic system. I just wouldn't implement it because it does lead to a loss of individualism in favor of the mob and / or the state. Disregarding the individualism argument momentarily, the reason socialism won't work here and hasn't worked in very many other nations is because it is being implemented as a half measure. This is why capitalism is failing as well - people are being taught to live as socialists but are not receiving the benefits of pure socialism and the behavior of a socialist makes it impossible for businesses to make a fair profit and opens the door to easy exploitation.

The liberal elite have brought this country to a place where they will have their way because they forced their thinking down the throats of empty minds so that they in turn can force capitalism to ruin, and naturally everyone that's left will scream for socialism as the only logical repair.

The title of your book may be simple, but it makes me want to read it all the more. I was thinking of writing a story yesterday (always having ideas but no energy to put them down yet) that I wanted to title, "Aviator." But I realized that the title was very similar to a movie made in recent years - I'd hate to give people the wrong idea - maybe I could market that in literary fiction and it wouldn't confuse people? Anyway, my feeling is to say to hell with it, keep the title. And if it has anything to do with what we are discussing here, I can NOT wait to read it. Have you thought about getting Michael Medved to promote it? I wish I had a line in for you, but I don't doubt for a second that he would give your book a shot, and I wouldn't be surprised if he promoted it.

With the best and most thoughtful of hubs and comment discussions, my response is also my thought process as it is here, and I am becoming more and more convinced that capitalism is the best economic system for a country to start with and keep. Thank you for continuing to entertain my thoughts and provide intelligent responses. Love ya brother.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 08, 2012:

Alexander Mark— I am sorry it took so long for me to respond to your commentary. I am working on my book day and night. I have suddenly felt a sense of urgency to get it published by (hopefully) June. My working title is "The Truth." Rather low-key I thought. :D

In regard to your first paragraph, this is a widespread phenomenon. I think that is why Progressives want a dumbed down generation to come out of our public schools. The dumber they are the more need they will have of "experts" of "social science" to make decisions for them.

These same thinkers are against risk-taking—or at least against any advantage acruing to risk-takers who gamble and win through free enterprise. They also disdain the competition that has made the Western World great because no one should outshine anyone else in their world—except those elite experts the progressives claim to be.

When you beat down people's free will, self-reliance, and individualism long enough, they tend to develop Stockholm Syndrome. They identify with their captures.

Also, it is well known that when many men get out of prison, where they have been told what to do 24-7, they have lost to ability to decide what to do for themselves. Both of these mental conditions are what progressives want to inculcate. They want a nation of dependents because they want power—power not as a means, really, to some other ends; but power as an end: Power for power's sake.

In Western Europe they have implemented a sort of middle way between Socialism and Capitalism. But as Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." The "leaders" of Western Europe have gotten elected by promising voters wealth that wasn't their's to give.

You hit on a great point: studies show that having some control over your life is more likely to create personal happiness than wealth itself (presuming you are not destitute and without food, clothes, and shelter).

I am so glad you came over to read this article. I appreciate your compliments. Thank you very much for your ongoing encouragement of my writings. And you are welcome.

God Bless You!


Alexander Silvius from Portland, Oregon on February 25, 2012:

You are entirely correct about those who favor socialism in this country and the use of law. Whenever I have had deep discussions with liberals about this, their idea always comes down to a larger organization (government) deciding for the individual what is best because logic trumps individual stupidity. I suppose it's a very feel good idea except for the person whose life is being controlled and micromanaged for his own good.

I am NOT sorry to say that I prefer a country with rednecks who kill themselves doing stupid things because that means we ALL have that freedom. Where would we be if government decided that the Wright brothers could not pursue their dreams because they might hurt themselves? The end result would be a third world economy because so many great technological achievements only came into existence because of the birth and growth of aviation.

I think returning to nature is in many ways a great thing and definitely America's industrial economy is not the healthiest environment to work in - but, I do not want to go live in a cave or a mud hut because the government has regulated us into the paleolithic (not that I believe that era ever existed).

What is it about people that makes them think that a great overseeing organization can make better decisions for everyone, including themselves? I do not get it. The only person best qualified to make decisions for them is themselves.

I must point out that socialism does not have to be evil. In fact, I would say that socialism has been creeping in because evil people are drawn to the power in government, but they are using socialistic reform merely as a vehicle.

It is an easy way to gain control over people. From the little I know, socialism works to a high degree in Western Europe and I am not so quick to accept that the problems they are having are directly related to the dangers of socialism. But you mentioned a few nations in the comments above that have employed socialism and are excellent examples of the danger of socialism. (I believe you pointed out to me in past comments that Europe is a mixture of capitalism and socialism). Obviously it does not have a high success rate!

My only real problem with socialism, which I believe is your entire point, is that socialism takes away individual freedom. This is very, very true. I can't imagine living in a freer country than the United States.

I am most unhappy when someone else is pulling my strings and I would rather be poor and free than be someone else's slave, no matter how nice I am treated. I am referring to working for someone else, but I think that feeling, that idea is completely relevant all across the board. At least, when I go home, I have the freedom to walk around in my underwear so to speak, to eat what I want even if it kills me and never worry that someone will punish me for my choices. But even more important, I can pray and read the Bible as much as I want, and that's already hard enough without the government telling me not to!

Excellent hub as always. Took me a while to get here, but as always, I am not disappointed because you get to the root of the matter and dig deep into what and why. For example, before this, I didn't actively connect socialism and totalitarianism and how one logically declines into the other. Thank you again Sir James (sorry, couldn't help it).

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 07, 2011:

aronswebsites— Amen! Welcome to the HubPages Community!

aronswebsites from Buffalo New York on June 06, 2011:

God Bless America!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 20, 2010:

Milli Mill— Thank you! Thank you very much.

Milli Mill from Canada on May 19, 2010:

Interesting hub!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 30, 2010:

A M Werner— I agree with the first part of your commentary, about company towns and unions with the note that the people in that company town moved there voluntarily. They choose to move to these "boomtowns" and leave wherever they came from. This is markedly different from Socialist countries where you are told where to go and what to do.

You are surely right about the plethora of broken treaties with Native Americans. That is shameful.

Jesus said, the poor will always be with you. Under any system. My point is that Capitalism raised the standard of living for ENTIRE nations, benefitting all. For instance, even the poorest Americans (let's include the mentally retarded, mentally ill, physically disabled, the uneducated, the unskilled, the aged) benefit from the country's wealth, not only through wealth transfer payments, but through the incredible array of public works, highways, infrastructure, parks, etc. A great experiment went on with Socialism in the USSR, North Korea, East Germany. The results are beyond dismal. The incentive system is the key to human progress (in the secular world).

Allen Werner from West Allis on March 29, 2010:

It's okay to be contrary with me James because I was being contrary first. I also mentioned the need for unions because in addition to the slavery of African-Americans as well as Asians on the West Coast, America's greatest empire builders practically owned whole towns around their mills and their mines. Those who worked in and for these places were paid a pitiful wage and their very existence was one of indentured service to the stores owned by their bosses. They could barely afford basic necessities, including the tools they needed for work. If their debt to these kings of finance grew, the children inherited it, and like a modern feudal system, whole families were trapped by businesses - businesses which the U.S. government allowed to form their own private security forces. The government also willingly sent in troops to assist in quieting any dissent and unionizing. I'm not saying I am a fan of unions either, but I just see them as what some might call a necessary evil to counteract an original evil. And even before that wonderful time period, the government consistently encouraged expansion and land-theft while breaking every peace treaty they signed with the original inhabitants of this country. Promise after promise was broken to take valuable lands and resources away from those sitting on it. And even the ones who made the first claim didnt always retain it because those with more firepower often ran them off. This is just a personal view I hold and I know it covers a large range but I think it all amounts to the same conclusion. Prosperity under any form of government comes with a price. And just like the very first picture you showed at the beginning of this hub, poverty occurs in all of them, not just socialism. Peace.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 29, 2010:

A M Werner— I don't want to be contrary, especially with such an honored guest as yourself, but I would like to point out that the idea that "America was built on the backs of slaves" is a myth. The South with slavery had 1/3 the wealth of the North without slaves in 1860. The United States was never considered a wealthy nation until long after slavery ended. In fact America got rich long after slavery was over—not before. It makes for a neat story though.

I do appreciate your point about not being of the world. But we are to be in the world. I am in it and its affairs concern me and I am concerned about my descendants as well.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 29, 2010:

msorensson— Thank you for taking the time to come by and read my article. I love your insightful comments. And you are surely welcome. :)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 28, 2010:

skye2day— How nice to see you again. Thank you for the well received laudations. I very much appreciate you for driving more traffic to this article. Your comments are extraordinary. I love them! Thanks for the hug and you are truly most welcome.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 28, 2010:

ffrankbb— You do make some solid points, my kind sir. I appreciate you for coming by and weighing in. Thank you.

Allen Werner from West Allis on March 28, 2010:

Well James, I'll just leave a little comment. Simply, I see all governments as being exploitive is some capacity. It cannot be denied that much of the capitalist society we enjoy today has been built on the exploitation of slave labor as well as the corporate abuses of workers that caused unions to come into power to try to deflect the tyranical control these enterprises had over land and resources. Industry, science and so-called progress has managed to pollute the earth in the newest and most unimaginable ways. I still believe, no matter what system is in place, a Christian walks through them without concerning themselves with them. Peace.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 27, 2010:

John B.— You are so right. You didn't see people sneaking behind the Iron Curtain on rafts or in the container holds of ships or burrowing under the Berlin Wall. For anybody not to see this they have to be blind. Thank you for your outstanding analysis. You are triple sharp.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 27, 2010:

OpinionDuck— hmmm . . . you make a mighty fine point there, OD. I couldn't have said it as well myself. Thank you.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 27, 2010:

Cedar Cove Farm— This is one of the things I love about HubPages. There are a great many deep thinkers on here. And you are truly one of them. I just love what you wrote. If we lower the branches for the short-necked giraffes, guess what we'll get? More and more short-necked giraffes. Thank you very much for your wise words. Welcome to the Hub Pages Community.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 27, 2010:

Hxprof— I can't stand relativism. It is one of my pet peeves. It makes no sense. Anyway. Your commentary is sadly what lies in store for Christians at the end of this age. We can see it coming. Thank you for stating it so perfectly. It's always great to hear your learned voice.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 27, 2010:

tonymac04— I appreciate you coming back, brother. My point about art is that, for instance, here in the U.S. we have government funding of SOME art and not other art. Therefore, you have the government choosing some artists over others, and therefore not Blind Justice, but governmental favoritism.

I appreciate your thoughtful and heartfelt comments. Thank you for adding much to this conversation.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 27, 2010:

Facts Matter— Actually, this Hub is already getting plenty of traffic. I thought the Rule of Law in relation to Socialism was a fairly fresh take. I'd never seen anybody write about it before. I'm sorry you were disappointed.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 27, 2010:

OpinionDuck— You are welcome. Thanks for coming back with the fine add-on. I agree with you. But if you think about it, Social Liberals always have that attitude, that the elite will tell the little people what they should do; and that they will coddle everybody, which implies they don't think the average man is capable of fending for himself. :D

msorensson on March 27, 2010:

I will quote this from your hub in order to make my comment, James..I am smiling..

"A Socialist planning board member possesses far more power than the most successful member of a Capitalist society."

My own opinion stays that Socialism is subtle prelude to something other than that remains. There is no "pure" Socialism.

In this context the members of the board of a very large corporation or for that matter a very well endowed Philantropic organization are not different. Only the the objectives differ.

People may unknowingly become a part of these governing boards, and in truth, their individual beliefs and reasons for being in those boards different from the overall objective.

While ignorance does not preclude anyone from the consequence of their actions, they will not have the same penalty. This is where "willfull and malicious intent" differs from negligence [true unknowing]

As always, I love the way you write.

skye2day on March 27, 2010:

Hello James. Wow Fantastic Hub. I pray this opens blinded eyes. Many heads are in the sand. There is no doubt the ENEMY and his followers are out to devour the Love of God.

The name Of Jesus Christ. In the end we know where the enemy goes. To Hell for ever. That is the Good news. We have a spiritual warfare on our believing hands. There is one way Know Jesus/Know Peace. No Jesus/No Peace. Children of God we are the head not the tail. I like the diagram above with state at head and underneath all the people. That state is the enemy in that diagram. It is easy to see what the enemy desires. He's a fool and it will not work. May Our Lord be with us and help us to stand for our beliefs in the Creator. He gives life and takes life.

Dictators are nothing more then the Devil himself. God is way bigger and will move MOUNTAINS. A tree dies from the top. The Leaders are at the top of the tree. Anything not written in the Word of God our guide for living is idle babble. 2 Timothy Paul's last writing to the young church of speaks of these times then AND RIGHT NOW TODAY. I wrote a hub 'to love larger' based on Paul's epistle. Thank you for sharing the truth in simple language. You are a God send James. I pray this reaches many. I will help it along by linking it out. I love ya. You are my news dude. I am Blessed bro. Sending a warm hug James.

ffrankbb from Michigan on March 27, 2010:

Hello James,

Nicely written demarcation of Stalinist type "socialism". I would offer that you take that extreme case, which claimed to be Marxist and Socialist and in fact was a Lenin/Stalin style dictatorship, and extend it to all the uses of the term "socialism," including egalitarian, social justice, etc.

Nazism is similar, of course, the main difference being who owns the means of production and delivery of goods and services, but they are both dictatorships disguised as socialism.

Social justice, refers properly to the legislative correction of ingrained injustice within society, such as ending slavery, ending segregation, guaranteeing equal access to legal justice and equal treatment before the law. We all know that these things, to some extent, still happen on a regular basis, and need to be continually addressed. That's democracy for you, and a far cry from either Stalinism or Nazism.

John B on March 27, 2010:

If there were a way to take an honest discreet poll of all members of all countries living with socialism, democracy,

communism, totalitarianism and any form of dictatorship, with no way of their government knowing, how many would

say they'd opt out given a chance of the system they live in? In this absurd scenario all these citizens would get a chance to sit down with members of all the other societies (and somehow communicate)to compare notes about their rights and lifestyles. How many do you think would give up their predicament to live in one of the other systems. I for one would like to see the results of this. I'd feel proud when the results were compiled and it is shown that democracy is gravitated to in overwhelming numbers. Why does anyone think we're such a melting pot of cultures?

OpinionDuck on March 26, 2010:


I know that I should let sleeping dogs "lie", but I just can't bring myself to do it.

Facts matter, yet you provide none. Sorry, I just had to share the irony.

That is my opinion, duck it if you can.

Cedar Cove Farm from Southern Missouri on March 26, 2010:

Wow. I didn't read all the comments here, so if this has been said already, I apologize. One major problem our country has is that it has made the words "fair" and "equal" synonymous, and they are not. In a foot race, it is fair for everyone to line up at the start. It is equal that only one will win (everyone had an equal shot.). What the world wants to do is tell the faster people to stop and wait for the slower ones so we can all cross the line together. It is not fair for me to treat someone as equal.

Hxprof on March 26, 2010:

Right On Target Mr. Watkins. One of the highest points of this article is the fact that all must be led to believe what the government wants them to believe. The Soviet Union had 're-education camps'.

Since all of society's beliefs must be brought together under a single umbrella, the beliefs of the Christian are included. We are witnessing now the end of the age unfolding as the US itself falls victim to the moral relativism that has plagued most of the rest of the world for the last 40 years.

Christians will be forced into one of two camps: those who do all that Christ commands and those who refuse. Those who refuse to, "work out your own salvation" (meaning to deal with the issues of our hearts as God brings them to the surface) and "wash your hands you sinners,cleanse your hearts you double minded" (spoken to CHRISTIANS by James) will fall for the false system which is finally being set up in the US, just as it has been set up in much of the rest of the world.

Those Christians who obey all that Christ taught, following not the highway which leads to destruction, but the narrow road that leads to life, will have as their hope in these darkening times the promise of Christ to give us, "the crown of life".

Take care.

Tony McGregor from South Africa on March 26, 2010:

OK James, this is my last contribution to this debate! It is clear that it is differing understandings of some terms that is at work here. My understanding of the rule of law is that it is a legal regime which protects people from arbitrary and abusive actions by a government. In other words it has to do with the fair and open application of the laws more than with the making of the laws. Socialism as I understand it is in no way inimical to this idea of the rule of law. In fact I would argue that it is a more suitable milieu in which the rule of law can flourish than is capitalism, but that is the subject for another debate, I think.

The rule of law is the judicial process which protects democracy. The legislative process is governed by a constitution against which the constitutionality or otherwise of laws can be tested.

Socialism in the pure sense is an economic system and can work very well within the context of a good constitution and the rule of law. There is no necessary contradiction.

The necessary contradiction is with totalitarianism. All totalitarians, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Franco, Pinochet, et al abrogate the rule of law. And their citizens suffer as a result. This is not socialism. Even if some of them claim to be socialist. The idea of socialism is to improve the lives of ordinary people, not make them worse.

As far as art and culture are concerned, again these suffer under totalitarianism. No socialist that I have ever met or read has ever claimed that the state should dictate to artists. But the avowedly anti-communist apartheid regime in South Africa tried its best to do that, and even tried to tell us what we could or could not read, watch in cinemas, even listen to on LPs! People were jailed for having "banned" books in their possession.

So why am I making these comments here? I guess as Facts Matter says above, "for the greater good." I think we get blinded by ideologies, prejudices and labels so we can't see truth. My usual plea - let's stop shouting at each other across the barricades and start listening to and learning from each other. It's very easy to paste a label on someone because then we don't have to take seriously what they are saying. So we call Obama a "socialist" (which to me is laughable, to be honest!) then we don't need to take on board anything he says, and we can even start talking about impeaching him. That is neither fair nor sane.

Anyway enough already of my ranting.

Love and peace


Facts Matter on March 26, 2010:

I honestly thought I might learn something here but it is just another tedious rant, Yawn. One thing for sure, you will get zero search engine traffic for this article, which means zero income. So you must be doing this for the greater good. Does that make you a commie?

OpinionDuck on March 26, 2010:


beep, the judges say no.

But you have made my point on the ambiguity of labels.

BTW, I had another thought about the recent healthcare bill passage. It was like having the democrats and the president deem We The People as incompetents that needed a guardian to handle our lives. They took us from masters of these public servants to their children or feeble parents.

Thanks for your hospitality.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

Scott Charmichael— Well, thank you Scott for your gracious words. I am doing the best I can with an 11th grade education. I enjoy reading, researching, and trying to make macro concepts digestible in a short space. This is my aim. I appreciate your appreciation.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

carolina muscle— Thank you. A big tip of the hat to Hayek, Schumpeter, and Pipes is in order. I couldn't have cogently put this together without them. :)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

Portamenteff— Your comments really hit home. Allow me to quote you:

"Government doesn't give it's own power up. It Progresses itself into more power. That is why we need to slow progressivism down. The longer it takes, the more generations of our descendants will enjoy freedom.

I myself have a child, and therefore want to leave this world knowing my child has the same freedom I had."

Having the government decide what art deserves state sponsorship is very dangerous, and stifles freedom. I would hope most folks could see this. It is a centralized power choosing the winners and losers in a society.

Thanks for your great comments.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

John B.— The Health Care Bill will cost trillions of dollars and I think most people know that. The opportunities for corruption will be manifold, as you say. Worse yet, to me, the government will have the power of life and death decisions. They will decide who gets what health care. This is the antithesis of Freedom. This is baldfaced Socialism, without question. Congresswoman Jackson said on TV yesterday, the bill was passed to help "second class citizens." Who are they?

Thank you, John, for your always timely and wise remarks. I enjoyed reading your words.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

Ictodd1947— You are welcome. I wish us the best, too. I am afraid Socialism is the goal. The Health Care Bill is an atrocity. And the Education section of it is there to stifle Freedom of Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion. Thanks much for your comments.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

Amber Allen— Thank you, Amber, for your thoughtful remarks. I liked your quote of Lord Acton there. This subject has been quite interesting to research and write. And the conversations have been stimulating. I appreciate your participation and encouragement.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

tonymac04— You're welcome, Tony. Your comments show acute insights. You've made many good points here. I appreciate you adding much value to this conversation. You have a fine mind. Thank you.

Love and Peace to you,


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

OpinionDuck— The reason for that is that Socialism IS a religion, and can brook no competitors. I understand what you mean by labels. My very purpose here is to explicate what this word, Socialism, means. Words do have meanings, and words are powerful.

Pornography means the public display of sexual organs or sexual acts, no?

Thank you for your fine comments.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

gatorgrad2001— I have never deleted a comment from HubPages. Many do, if the comment is vitriolic or insulting, or rants without making a concrete point about anything. I am against Fascism.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

Angela Blair— Thank you so much, Sis, for your warm affirmation. I am gratified to read your remarks. :D


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 26, 2010:

tonymac04— You are welcome. Stalin and Mao, in their own writings both before and after coming to power, describe their belief systems as Socialist. Since the results they, and every other Socialist regime, produced were so horrible, some folks want to claim they didn't know their own ideologies.

I do appreciate your excellent comments. Thank you for reading my article and offering your insights.

The way The Rule of Law is shuttled aside by Socialism is explained above in theory. To see the theory in practice, consider a few scenarios:

Let's say the government passes a law for job quotas, guaranteeing 12% of all emergency room doctors, or basketball players, will be of African descent. This is using the Law as a Socialist, to provide different outcomes for different citizens by government fiat, rather than meritocracy. Since the classical Rule of Law cannot advantage one group over another, this is a violation of the Rule of Law.

Let's sat the government makes Law that all female athletes will be provided scholarships at college to play their sports equally with male athletes, in spite of the fact that men want to play sports 1000% more, and spectators (which bring revenue to the school) will pay to see men play 1000% more. This is using the Law to benefit one group over another. This is a violation of The Rule of Law.

Let's say the government confiscates, or simply prints, a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, and it comes out that $870,000,000,000 of the funds went to districts that voted for the current president. This is using federal Law to produce different outcomes in different peoples lives, a violation of the Rule of Law.

It may seem subtle, but the Rule of Law means that the government, in legislating, is blind. It does not see a male or female, black or white, democrat or republican, standing in front of it.

Plenty of arguments can be made about righting wrongs and whatnot. That is not what I am addressing here. I want people to understand what the Rule of Law is under a democracy and what it is not.

Scott Carmichael on March 26, 2010:

I guess I'm going to have to figure out how to become a member here so that I can get notifications, and follow your posts... You articulate carefully and patiently what is a very emotional topic at this point... I particularly appreciate that you take your time with this, and you are fairly dispassionate... where I am tempted to throw bombs, you stay right on target... I've been going through and reading several of your articles,and you have a new fan..

you'll see my face on your followers list soon...


carolina muscle from Charlotte, North Carolina on March 26, 2010:

A skillful argument, James! Nicely done.

Portamenteff from Western Colorado, USA on March 25, 2010:

Under socialism, as a proven classical guitar virtuoso (proven of me by university proffessors, not my opinion, THEIRS) I would be given grants, and free living expenses per diem. That means I stand to gain an very easy life if socialsm becomes a reality in this country. I do however stand to lose a lot more because I lose the freedom to CHOOSE if I want to continue to play guitar any longer. In fact, I can still play J. S. Bach (6 peices,) Mendelssohn (1 peice,) Turino (1 piece) Fernando Sor ( about 30 peices,) Tarrega (8 pieces,) Duarte (1 piece.) Bassicaly about 3/4 of the peices my master taught me. If we were a socialist country, I would HAVE to play them That's why all those soviet defectors LEFT!!!!! They would be put in the gulag if they quit. Socialism leads to totalitarianism. PERIOD!!!!!! Government doesn't give it's own power up. It Progresses itself into more power. That is why we need to slow progressivism down. The longer it takes, the more generations of our descendants will enjoy freedom. Unless you can't reproduce, then socialism is right for you, right now! I myself have a child, and therefor want to leave this world knowing my child has the same freedom I had, (and you too.)

John B on March 25, 2010:

People do get hung up on names so without using any - "Too much government is not good by any name". For instance: adding 16,000 IRS agents to monitor HealthCare just invites corruption. Let's be optomistic and guess only 1% of the new 16,000 hirees are hooligans looking to get over and cheat their way using our money. The best intentions might eventually flush half of them out and they'll be replaced 100 more with some percentage of criminal element. If thoses 16,000 jobs don't exist the chance for corruption is proportionately less. We've all known people who'd steal anything they could at any time. Anyone who's never known someone like that probably wasn't paying attention and just "lost" whatever came up missing. Call it by any chosen name you prefer, I'd rather have to watch 10 people than 100. Who out there insists they can monitor 100 or 1,000 better than I can watch 10? And to suggest safeguard systems would in any way eliminate bad things happening is crap. Pessimism?

I say Realism.The new healthcare legislation claims it will create money savings by eliminating admitted corruption and adds tons of new people to the equation. No one actually believes this not to be the case. No one!

Linda Todd from Charleston on March 25, 2010:

Well said, I do not doubt that we are headed down an unknown path. I just wish us the we know now that no one is going to control certain things as long as "change" is in place.... It is so hard to believe that so many individuals are blind to what is being said with our new health care package. We are afraid of the unknown and it is only human to hope we are safe. I hope Socialism is not the goal.

Thanks for the break down of the above.

Amber Allen on March 25, 2010:

You certainly enjoy writing on contraversial topics James and this hub is no exception. My preferred version is for a hybrid version of Capitalism with a bit of Socialism thrown in to soften the edges and to keep a degree of control within the Government. Capitalism without control is almost equally horrifying as complete Socialism. Both end up with the power being in the hand of just a select few and we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Keep turning out your thought provoking hubs.


Tony McGregor from South Africa on March 25, 2010:

I was called away before completing my previous comment so want to add a little more.

Almost everything you say in this Hub about socialism could be turned around to be said also about capitalism, but I think it more important to talk about totalitarianism. For example you say "The word “truth” itself must be cast doubt upon. It will no longer represent something to be discovered, but something decided upon by authority, and believed in for the sake of unity." This is not a characteristic of socialism as such, but of any totalitarian government, of the left or of the right, in so far as these terms have any many any more. Or even of a religious movement, for that matter. Just look at the Christian right in the US, some elements in the Catholic Church, or what the western press likes to call "radical" Islam.

Hitler and his nazis similarly suppressed inquiry in the name of unity, as did Franco in Spain and the Nationalist Party in South Africa, none of whom were in any sense at all "socialist" (in spite of the name of the nazis they were not truly socialist).

OpinionDuck has a point about labels being unhelpful in this sort of debate. For example some socialists are militant atheists while there are also many sincere Christian socialists (and Jewish ones, and Muslim ones, and Hindu ones, etc. etc). And there are many capitalists who are militant atheists and some who are Christians too (and Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, etc, etc).

You mention Hitler. He achieved his "success", if you can call it that, precisely on an anti-communist ticket. The repressive and evil apartheid regime in South Africa (of which I have personal and first hand knowledge) used the bogey of communism to keep whites quiescent while they suppressed, with often extreme violence, the black majority. So for me anti-communism is a little suspect, considering who has used it as a propaganda tool in relatively recent history.

Have a lot more to say on this subject but will leave it here for now!

Thanks again for opening an important debate.

Love and peace


OpinionDuck on March 25, 2010:


Your comment on countries that have implemented socialism at the expense of religion, while true is ironic.

It says that man provides for man and God should stay out of it. While I don't favor religion, I don't think that it should be eliminated by government.

The only economic relationship that I can think to connect the two, would be that government wants all the money and property, especially the billions that are tithed to religions.

I believe, it is the hundred years of congressional corruption that brought down the American Way in this country, and it needs to be fixed, instead of being replaced by another rather un-American system, called socialism.

BTW, instead of labels, such as socialism, I would like to see the examples of it applied to the American way, and how it would hurt or help our current situation. The problem with labels is that everyone has a different interpretation on its meaning. This is directed more to the other commenters, than you.

For example,

LABEL: pornography

MEANING: everyone has a different meaning and a different threshold on it.

There goes my pithy award, sorry.

gatorgrad2001 on March 25, 2010:

It appears that your hubs are totalitarian because you only keep the comments that agree with you. So, do you think fascism is a good thing? I posted a comment to one of your hubs and it disappeared.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

Austinstar— "The Man" is watching you as we speak.

I will do a Hub on the greatest country in which to live. That is a great idea! Thanks!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

billyaustindillon— Me snicker!? :-)

Thank you for the compliment. I'm glad you dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

Truth From Truth— Thank you and you are welcome. I greatly appreciate your excellent comments. Stop making sense! :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

point2make— You are most welcome. Thank you for the laudations! I am thankful to read them.

I agree with you that there is a clear and present danger, which requires eternal vigilance. I appreciate your thoughtful insights.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

gracenotes— Hello! Thank you. Thank you very much. It is interesting that all countries which have implemented true Socialism have also insisted on Atheism. That ought to tell us something right there. Excellent comments.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

prettydarkhorse— WOW! You are a deep thinker, my brainiac friend. Your brilliance has me speechless. You should have written this article, Maita. Thank you and you are welcome.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

ArchDynamics— Thank you profusely! I'll use this fine tip. A Chicago Dog would be nice right about now. Where to get one?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

ArchDynamics— I always wanted to be a history teacher. :D

Yes, I have done that countless times! Thank you for your comments and ongoing encouragement, my friend.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

eovery— Well, at least you've got a plan. :-) I'm not saying it's a good plan but it's a plan. I agree with your words. Thank you for saying them.

Angela Blair from Central Texas on March 25, 2010:

James - you're right on again and please, please keep telling it like it is. Your research and presentation is totally understandable to all that really want to know. Best, Sis

Tony McGregor from South Africa on March 25, 2010:

I'm wondering if anyone who has commented here actually understands what socialism is? I mean that socialism is very different from what Stalin and Mao instituted in their countries, which was dictatorship in the guise of socialism.

There is nothing in socialism proper which would contradict the rule of law. Socialism indeed works very well under a constitution and with an independent judiciary.

Socialism is a very workable political system in which individual liberty is still respected. Indeed in a truly socialist state people would have far more control over their lives and the work they do than is possible in a captialist state.

The problem as I see it is that in capitlist propaganda authoritarian communism has been conflated with socialism and so people have this huge fear of socialism which is actually unfounded.

Thanks for an interesting, though I think slightly misinformed Hub.

Love and peace


Lela from Somewhere near the heart of Texas on March 25, 2010:

Somebody do a hub on the best country in the world to live in and let's all move there! I'm tired of working for the 'man'. Any hippie communes still running?

Love, Peace, Flowers in your hair, etc...

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

sheila b.— Your comments are full of power and wisdom. Thank you very much for making them here. You have added value to the discussion.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

Tom Whitworth— I am a big fan of Freedom and Liberty, Tom. Thanks for coming by and offering your encouragement.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

Hello, hello,— Thank you very much and you are welcome. There are dark forces waiting in the wings chomping at the bit to take over our mighty nation. I greatly appreciate your astute observations.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

greatAmerican— Yes, the welcome mat is out alright. "The Turd Reich!" That is funny. Thanks for coming by to visit.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 25, 2010:

OpinionDuck— Thank you for being my first visitor!! I appreciate the compliment and your wise comments. You wrote:

"The Supreme Court instead of protecting the Constitution, it has slowly but surely eroded it, and making it vulnerable to un-natural mutations of the minority. The minorities should be protected, but not make them the dominant will of the country."

Very keen observations. I agree. The courts have more and more ruled lately that any minority has a legal right not to be offended, as evidenced by the high school group being denied the right to play an instrumental version of Ave Marie (because it is a beautiful song) as the TITLE may have offended someone in the audience.

billyaustindillon on March 25, 2010:

Another great hub - I can here you snickering from here with the latest Senate action with the great medicare bill. :)

Truth From Truth from Michigan on March 25, 2010:

Well stated James, with ObamaCare now passed, we seem to be dangerously close to socialism in this country. I have always felt that people that are for wealth redistribution don't understand that if everyone was given 10 million dollars, that 10 million dollars would lose all it's value. When people look for dream scenarios where everyone is well off, they seem to forget basic economics. Thanks.

point2make on March 24, 2010:

Again, well done James! Your hubs are always a pleasure to read and absorb. The foundations of your topics are always solid and your presentation and style are those of a great teacher. Thank-you.

In spite of what some people would like to believe Socialism has not been relegated to the dustbin of history. It is alive and well and there are many people, around the world, who would willing embrace it once again. We must always be vigilant for while the enemy may not,yet, be at the door.....the danger is ever present.

gracenotes from North Texas on March 24, 2010:

Hi James.

This is one of your better hubs. Good explanations of basic concepts.

The most socialist of countries definitely do not have a good moral compass. I believe their citizenry gradually turned away from the Lord, and consequently it became easier and more acceptable over time to tolerate a socialist form of government.

Last year, I had a Bible study leader who is originally from Germany. One of the fellow class members immigrated from Norway a long time ago. The two of them had a brief discussion of which of their native countries was the most spiritually dark.

prettydarkhorse from US on March 24, 2010:

Because socialism is only an "ideal" it must be terrible to implement, socialism is a "dream" - its concept is even impossible even in writing, I dont even know how can they come up with this idea. Like I said it is a dictatorial kind of governance where the masses should rule but it is the elite who will rule -- always and will be!

You dont follow the rules, you dont belong -- and you will be punished, thats why it is not successful, it is created by people who are selfish and Machiavellian type of dictatorship, little bit of Plato in his Republic -- where the best rules -- the best among the best and those who are not intellectuals will just follow...

If this government will even try his trick, they should read first history

-- but alas even history is written by those who want ideas to be reshape -- reinventing the sense of being and becoming -- history will judge the people up there only if history will be written by "commom people"

very nice hub, Maita

ArchDynamics from Orlando, FL on March 24, 2010:

Great MS Word Shortcut:

1. Make sure the F key is on/active. It's usually in the upper right hand corner of the keyboard somewhere.

2. Highlight the sentence/text you want to change.

3. Hold down the SHIFT key.

4. Still holding down the SHIFT key and with your TEXT STILL SELECTED, press the F3 key.

5. As you watch your selected text, press the F3 key TWO MORE TIMES.

6. You will see your text change to [all lower case], then to [ALL UPPER CASE] and finally to [Every Every Word Capitalized].

You may thank me profusely and pay me in hamburgers. Or, better yet, Chicago Hot Dogs.

ArchDynamics from Orlando, FL on March 24, 2010:

King James:

I suggest we no longer send our kids to History Class in school, but rather redirect them to your Hubs.

I think they'd be better off for it. Just the facts, ma'am, then there's more time to spend for recess.

Ever start typing and get about halfway through a sentence, then realize it was all upper case and have to erase and retype it? Wants a great Word shortcut tip?

There's not enough room here, so look for a quick second post!

eovery from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa on March 24, 2010:

I say screw it, when socialism takes us over, I will quit working and let the government take care of me. HAHAHA!

We are in trouble James, the devil has his foot in the door, and he is prying it open more and more everyday.

Keep on hubbing!

sheila b. on March 24, 2010:

We see the direction Washington is taking this country, and as I watch I remember reading about Mao executing the opium addicts and other 'undesirables', as well as university intellectuals and landowners and those with political power. Yet just the people most at risk idolize Mao and Marx. Crazy.

Tom Whitworth from Moundsville, WV on March 24, 2010:

James, keep on fighting never give up fredom and justice!!!!!

Hello, hello, from London, UK on March 24, 2010:

A masterpiece of a subject which is not only scary but pertifying. Thank you, James. I think people shouldn't keep on contemning the government because the situationis dangerous and they only pore water onto the mill of socialism or the Nazis and don't think there are not waiting in the wings ready to jump. It was the same situation in the 1920 and 1930. You should stand behing your present government. I know the Republican scream, even if you are not in power at the moment. It is still better than what is waiting to jump in.

greatAmerican on March 24, 2010:

James,, the welcome mat is out for Socialism,, you recently did a hub on turds, and that is what we now have for leadership.. as you said the 'Turd Reich'!

OpinionDuck on March 24, 2010:


Another great hub, but it won't resonate with the intended audience, those people that are pushing this country away from the Republic for which it was created.

If the Supreme Court was or even had been doing their intended job as a check and a balance in the power of this country they would have adjudicated any legislation that moved away from the tenets of our intended Republic as an unconstitutional act.

The Supreme Court instead of protecting the Constitution, it has slowly but surely eroded it, and making it vulnerable to un-natural mutations of the minority. The minorities should be protected, but not make them the dominant will of the country.

Related Articles