The Unviability of Socialism

The highly debatable concept of socialism, which was first discussed by Karl Marx in 1847 outlines a system that is increasingly more appealing to the left-leaning side of the political spectrum of America.  The ability of the government to centrally plan the national economy for the international scale would allow workers to retain their jobs, be paid essentially the same across the board, and have the ability to have governmental aid such as health care and welfare.  Public policies are already changing the landscape, affecting all aspects of the typical citizen’s life: taxes are heightening, wits being lost, and the increasing absence of conservativism that pushes the privatized economy, called capitalism.  On multiple levels, socialism fails to uphold a sustainable economy and nation.  Through historical, economic, and sensical means, the idea of socialism is irresistibly refutable. 

            As I tune in to the daily news, I am reminded constantly of the atrocities occurring nationwide and around the world.  The typical liberal will claim that it is all due to the greed of man fed by the corrupt system of capitalism that divides us all.  If we were all the same, no war would exist, harmony would reign free, and no worries would be added to the preexisting stress of interpersonal relationships.  However, what we can gather from simple on-looking at nations that have attempted such goals, it fails rather messily.  Unfortunately, a sustainable socialist state has not been quelled.  Moreover, American revolutions are occurring all over, urging the government to take hold and lead us, further expanding their power.  In its essence, the zeitgeist has done just that. 

            Marx was familiarized with the “greediness” of industrious at the turn of the industrial revolution.  He grew up in a working-class family that struggled to stay afloat making payments to companies and keeping mouths fed.  Marx was convinced early on that everyone lived this way; that there was no means to better yourself.  Marx blamed capitalism on the maltreatment of man and sought to instate a socialist state that offered equality of outcome for all.  In much the same way the younger millennials have experienced capitalism in America, struggle to pay high taxes to the federal, state, and local governments, bills to companies, and keep food on the table, socialism has become something of a savior.  The trouble of keeping track of everything would fall away.  Furthermore, the common argument for socialism is the constant reassurance of peace and tranquility that exists among the preexisting socialist regimes of Europe, when in fact they are not very much of a socialist state than America.  The free market still reigns, with wages being made on the private level and government regulation in place.  America’s most popular politicians all support the passing of socialist policies, increasing taxes, regulating companies to the point of inoperability, and affecting the media. 

            Possibly one of the most famous examples of a failed socialist regime is in Venezuela.  In the late 90s, Venezuela had a promising future, with an increasingly more successful economy in the world.  However, with the introduction of a few alluring and manipulative politicians, Venezuela was taken from wealthy and full of potential to citizens scavenging for food in the streets.  After the impeccable two terms of leadership from Rafael Caldera, his successor, Hugo Chavez began the turmoil we are familiar with today.  What started as a movement to end the so-called overwhelming power of the economic elite who did not suffer and the proposal to take their wealth and redistribute it to the people was incredibly appealing to the common voter.  What ensued was catastrophe over time.  However not immediately, Venezuela came to realize that they were not as economically stable and were overall not as wealthy as they were before.  Power was converted to the central government, which planned and employed everyone.  This sort of control led to unrest between people and the eventual social collapse that has brought abundant crime, sickness, and tension in Venezuela. 

            This is not the only example of failed socialism.  Cuba, Honduras, and the Soviet Union, which practiced Leninism, an offshoot of Marxism, all failed in much the same way with political unrest and an unhealthy population.  Malnourishment, a sense of entitlement, laziness, and corruption of government officials all fester the longer a socialist regime is in place.  It becomes more evident after a certain point of people earning money without working that they do not need to seek out jobs.  Furthermore, companies hire fewer employees under the regime. After all, there is a cap to their more private funding because the overwhelming majority goes to the central government who runs the company from behind a curtain.  In lieu of corporations becoming confined, firms will usually leave the country to be headquartered where they will not experience pressure to change policy and have more economic freedom.  This leaves gaps in the economy of the nation that affects much of the privatized policy that holds companies bound to each other in positive ways.  Without that structure, collapse is imminent. 

            Economic issues precede the historical evidence.  When socialism has taken root, as mentioned previously, trade is monitored and controlled by the government.  Wages, healthcare, and everything are provided to the people as long as the government can pay for it.  In theory, the poor should become richer, decreasing the pay wage gap between the upper and lower classes.  However, for this to work, the lowest classes pay the fewest taxes, whereas the top percentiles pay a huge amount.  When this runs out, there isn’t as much cash flow and welfare can’t be paid as highly, or the state goes into debt due to the pressure to keep citizens paid.  What’s more, citizens being paid a comfortable living amount even when they are not working makes it incredibly difficult to keep a working class.  Most stop working altogether. 

            At the heart of socialism, hypothetically the people own everything.  Resources, time, money, etc. are all things that are interchangeable in a socialist system.  Production is publicized, meaning it is run by the people and not headed by private companies in a public plan.  This is to weed out possible corruption of a handful of people, however, this corruption is only transferred to the new leaders: politicians.  Foreign policy goes by the wayside, in favor of nationalism because the citizenry becomes so focused on themselves and stops interacting with outside companies for trade.  The centralization of the economy in tandem with this nationalist outlook makes it difficult for other countries to have a desire to work with them because they barely receive anything in return. 

            In contrast, the modern American liberal in favor of promoting a socialist regime would claim that we already are on the brink of accepting the system.  We already have a government-funded healthcare system for all, welfare, and food stamps, all of which are available to the public and paid through taxation of the people and companies of the nation.  Moreover, the steady addition of policies aimed to protect citizens from being overworked and the raising of minimum wages allude to the new era of socialism that has relied on the social profits and benefits of a healthy capitalist free market.  Although this all appears to be evident and promissory for American socialism to be in place and thriving, this is not enough for the left-wing politicians of DC.  They want to rid the world of free enterprise: the hope for a direct democracy of economics: people directly choosing their demand.  Under a true socialist regime, there would be no choice of what to support and what not to. 

             The beauty of the free market is that is free for everyone.  There is no limit on what companies can do, the starting of new ones, and the investment into companies worth more than others.  The fact of the matter is that although America is not a direct democracy, the capitalist free market is, and on an international scale.  What a socialist regime does is shut down any opportunity for members of the regime to choose what is important, thus the government takes hold and does not provide options. 

            In conclusion, socialism is not a viable system to sustain a modern country reliant on foreign trade and the capitalist ideals that have been instilled since the dawn of the industrial revolution.  The tried and failed attempts at integrating the system have tainted the reputation of a utopia and peace among people and the government.  Much like the swaddling of a mother to her child, socialist regimes do not allow the people to be free for themselves and pursue their economic interests in the long run. 

Help Received: None; Ryan H. O’Connor 5/4/21

Works Cited

Acton, H. B. (1955). The illusion of the epoch: Marxism-Leninism as a philosophical creed. London: Cohen & West.

Courtois, Stephane. Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Eastman, M. (1955). Reflections on the Failure of Socialism. New York, New York: Devin-Adair.

Eugen, B. V., Hilferding, R., & Bortkiewicz, L. V. (1973). Karl Marx and the close of his system. Clifton, New Jersey: A.M. Kelley.      

Hayek, F. A. (2009). The road to serfdom. London: Routledge.