Why a More Socialistic Society Is Superior

If you were born in the United States then you most likely depict socialism as a terrible society in which everyone lives in constant depression and oppression. I’m here to tell you that it is quite the opposite.

What is socialism?

There are many ways to define and govern a socialistic society, but they all have a similar objective: to even out the playing field and to provide the basic necessities for all of its citizens. Socialism is also commonly defined as the governmental or public control of certain sectors/industries. In fact, socialism can definitely contain a free market, but the difference would be that all workers would be paid a fair wage, the society would have several services and programs available to the public, and everyone would have equal access to all of the resources required to acquire capital.

The United States is a socialistic democracy whether you would like to admit it or not. Socialist programs we’ve all come to know and love include, but are not limited to, the police force, fire departments, public education, the postal service, the military, and social security. These are socialistic programs because they are made available to all citizens regardless of their current economic status. In a truly capitalistic society these services would only be made available to those who could afford it.

Another socialistic aspect of the current U.S. system is the fact that there is a progressive tax imposed on its citizens. A progressive tax is when someone is taxed proportionally higher the more income they have. Ideally, these tax dollars would be used effectively to help the individuals in the society that need it most or the public as a whole. Regulations imposed on corporations by the government in order to form fair exchanges or reduce negative externalities would also not be found in a truly capitalistic society. It is important to understand that these regulations are typically done for the collective well-being of the people within that society, which is socialistic by its very nature.  

As you can see, the United States is far from a pure capitalistic nation, and for good reason. A truly capitalistic society would more heavily exploit the poor, have the impoverished continue into a negative spiral of poverty, and have a greater amount of corruption within the government. So, whether you’re a republican, a democrat, a conservative, or a liberal, you’re a socialist.

So then what’s the problem with our current system?

The problem with our current system is that it is not socialistic enough! Our poverty rate is of the highest in the industrialized nations. The poor still have a clear disadvantage in reaching an ideal economic status. Money is found in disproportionally high amounts to a select few and in disproportionally low amounts to the majority. Workers are not paid proportional to the work they provide. Because workers are not adequately paid, many of them resort to stealing in order to provide for themselves and their family. Certain programs and services, which should be made available to all of the people in the society, are still only available to those who are of higher economic stature. Regulations imposed on political campaign contributions have been removed, allowing for a higher amount of corruption to occur within our government.  Also, because money is found so densely within a select few, these individuals have the ability to fund a greater amount of political campaigns that represent their interest as opposed to the interest of the society as a whole. For this reason, if you are in favor of democracy then you must also be in favor of a more just economic society.

What a More Ideal Socialistic Society Should Do

It is no secret that the disparity between the rich and poor is at an all-time high. There are several programs which could be created or more appropriately funded in order to benefit the society as a whole as opposed to a select few. In a more ideal society basic necessities would be met by programs such as a socialized health care system, which allows people to not fall into debt if they become sick. Our current education system is definitely in need of funds and would benefit heavily from the funding. In a more ideal socialistic society each worker would be appropriately compensated according to the labor provided. This means we must lift the minimum wage to a more ideal rate and make sure that it does not fall by periodically adjusting it for inflation. In a more ideal socialistic society the ultra-rich would be taxed more heavily than they currently are now. Certain loopholes in the system would also need to be closed so that each person pays what they actually should be paying. This excess in tax funds would allow the government to hire more workers to perform jobs that a capitalistic market has little to no need for (ecological jobs, jobs pertaining to research in certain sectors, jobs involving the help of those less fortunate, etc.). The hiring by the government, alongside appropriately paid jobs in the free-market, would ideally allow the poverty rate to be extremely close to zero. In a more ideal socialistic society every person would have a home and be appropriately fed. It is absurd to think that there are homeless and hungry people in our society despite having an excess of both homes and food in our nation.

In a more socialistic society there would be a greater focus on top-notch education up through college for everyone, the overall health of the public would be superior through a more ideal form of health care, wages would be appropriate for the labor provided, every wage would be enough to live comfortably, there would be more jobs available through public programs designed to improve the society, and everyone would have basic necessities such as food and shelter. 

As you can see, the United States is a moderately socialistic society, but we have not gone far enough. We must continue to reform the economy in order to do the most good for the greatest amount of people. When casting your vote, remember to support the candidate that does the most good for everyone in the society as opposed to those at the top.

Have any objections? Let me know what you think in the comments section below.

Related News

17 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. The Rural Iowegian
    Nov 29, 2014 - 12:31 PM

    No matter what level of wealth a person has, whether it be a very financially advantaged person or a financially disadvantaged person, they are all for equality as long as it does not adversely affect their current status. This can commonly be referred to as human nature.

    A young lady at the university I attend as a non-traditional adult student interrupted a conversation I was having with someone else by proclaiming we were full of fecal matter and America needs to be a socialist country. Even though she was not only rude to eavesdrop on someone else’s private conversation but also by interrupting, I decided to engage with her to try and understand her train of thought. She said that everyone should be entitled to the same pay and benefits as everyone else. This was the only way, according to her, to make life fair and equal. I asked her if she meant that no matter what a person did for a living, they should get the same pay and benefit as everyone else, and she said yes. A doctor the same as a janitor? A head of a corporation the same as a fry cook? An inventor the same as a maid? “Yes” she answered to all.

    I asked her if she had a job and she replied that she did. I asked her how much she got paid an hour and she said she got paid $13 per hour. I told her that I didn’t have a job and asked her if she was going to give me half her paycheck to make us equal. She looked at me like I was crazy. I then pointed out a homeless person that was digging through the ashtray outside the window. I asked her if she was willing to share her pay with him. Again, she looked astonished that I would ask such a thing. I opened my wallet and inside was five dollars that I had to buy my lunch that day. I said “I will give this guy all the money in my wallet as a charitable thing to do as I can go without lunch for one day and it looks like it’s been a while since he has eaten. Will you do the same?” Once again I was met with stone silence. To prove to her my word was good, I stood up and walked out of the room.

    I walked outside and told the homeless man that I had $5 to give him if he would honestly tell me how he was going to spend it. He looked at me and said he was going to spend it on beer and I gave him the money as a charitable act, not to equalize our status even though it left him with more money on him that I had for a moment. I gave him the freedom to do with what he had as he pleased. I went back inside and told the young lady that now I was destitute for the day and asked if she was going to buy me a bottle of water to somewhat socialize or equalize the status between her and me. She informed me that she was barely making it on the income she had and I needed to get my money to equalize our status from someone else thus proving my theory that she was for “equality” as long as it didn’t affect her status adversely.

    I then explained to her that if a CEO is paid the same as the janitor, even though the there is a different level of education and effort needed for each, what was the incentive for the person to work hard to get up to the CEO position? Before she could answer I asked if an inventor was not going to be rewarded for his invention, what incentive is there to be ingenuitive? If a general is the same as a private, where is the incentive? If a doctor is going to be paid the same as a fry cook, where is the incentive to put in all that time to become a doctor? Then you factor in that the nation’s leadership will pay themselves more because that is human nature to do so and you don’t have a socialist nation. She looked at me and said “You just don’t understand.” I told her that I understood just fine. She wants a better life and wants it handed to her by taking it away from someone else instead of working hard and earning it.

    You see, in America we are all CREATED equal. What happens after that is a combination of environment, personal capabilities, and internal drive with a splash of chance thrown in. When you start taking more and more away from the wealthy, even though many of them have worked hard to get where they are, and give it away to the less wealthy, eventually the wealthiest will take their money and leave to protect what they have. This will result in the middle class then being the ones identified as the wealthy. To again equalize pay and benefits you have to take more and more from the new wealth and eventually they too will pack up and leave to protect what little they have. Then, all you have left is a third world country where everyone is equally poor.

    I started working at a trade when I was 17. I worked hard and earned every promotion I ever received. I went from peon to middle management and even turned down offers of upper management because I enjoyed what I did as a middle manager and didn’t want to leave it. At 50, I was medically retired and now have a nice pension for my wife and I to live off of. The pension is a hair above the poverty level (and I literally mean a very fine hair above) but we have a roof over our heads and can afford food for the table. At one time we even had decent health care, but our policy was deemed not in accordance to Obamacare guidelines and it was taken away from us and replaced with a policy that requires us to now make decisions on whether to fill prescriptions or skip meals. We also no longer seek medical attention as we did before because we can’t afford the co-pays and annual deductions.

    (2)
    Reply
    • moonseafish
      Dec 15, 2014 - 02:10 AM

      @ The Rural Iowegian

      It seems as though clicking “reply” isn’t working. We’ll see if it does.

      I loved your post, and I read the entire thing. I agreed with everyone you said until you wrote, “You see, in America we are all CREATED equal… With a splash a chance.”

      A friend of mine was born in a town riddled in drugs, death, prostitution.
      I was born in a very religious town with generations of children unable to get out of their parents house due to traumatizing mental disabilities. (Bi-polar, depression, anxiety, socially incapable).

      How are we created equal to trust babbies, or even middle class families who have enough money to pay for their children’s schooling. I see hundreds of investment deals I could make it I had the cash, but I don’t. I could even make this money if I didn’t have loans from going to college. If I wasn’t given a car I wouldn’t be able to have the job I have now. (Since I had to move 300miles to get the job.)

      Promotions, scholoarships based on race, sex, age? I haven’t even begun to compare different countires such as China, or Africa.

      People are not born/created equal. They would only be born equal if they were all given the same opportunities at birth. Specifically speaking : not born to families, but instead raised in nurturing groups, as groups, and given the same opportunities from birth.

      (0)
      Reply
      • The Rural Iowegian
        Dec 15, 2014 - 10:56 AM

        We are all born with an equal chance of success in America.

        For example, Colin Powell was raised in poverty and became a great Army General. There are many others that went from rags to a respectable life. I also know many who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and blew it. Many of them are dead of their own devices or now living in squalor.

        I was born in middle class but was dropped below the poverty line when my parents divorced. I started working delivering newspapers when I was 9, worked at a gas station pumping gas, changing oil and fixing flats when I was 12. I worked full time in restaurants while going to high school full time too. My senior year in high school I was a full time farm hand for our landlord in exchange for rent on the house where my mother, two siblings and I lived. Everything was done to help my mother make ends meet. I joined the military when I was 17 and worked my way up through the ranks.

        Despite all the bad hands I was dealt, I not only pulled myself out of poverty, but also my immediate family.

        What you become in life is totally up to you.

        If you don’t have the money to make investments to increase your financial wealth, you and only you need to work harder to attain your goals. Those who have made it to include trust fund babies owe you nothing, just as they owe me nothing.

        As for promotions, scholarships and such, EEOC has pretty much made it so a Euro-American male has less chance of getting any of these than counterparts of other races, ethnicities, and or gender.

        As for other countries and continents (Africa is a continent, not a country), I keep focused on America not them as we have enough problems of our own to try and deal with all the others. But if you want to look at China, look at the period after the revolution. You had the leadership living in luxury and everyone else living in squalor. Anyone who tried to make a little extra cash through capitalism was executed. Anyone who spoke up against the government was executed. There were millions of people executed in China alone and to top it off, the families of those executed were given the bill for the cost of the execution to pay.

        Finally in response to your last paragraph, even this has been proven unsuccessful because even in socialist and communist countries where this practice is/was performed, the children of the leadership were raised in nurseries with better food and education than those of the commoners, thus giving the offspring of the leadership a guaranteed place in the ruling party.

        (1)
        Reply
  2. Victor Delta
    Sep 19, 2016 - 01:37 PM

    If socialism is so superior, then why has every society that introduced it or integrated sizable aspects of socialism collapsed upon its unsound foundations rather quickly in terms of historical time? For future reference, get your history and logic straight.

    (1)
    Reply
  3. Sghjk
    Jul 15, 2014 - 01:21 PM

    I believe you forgot to mention the most important thing of socialism and is that socialism looks for the end of capitalism. A well working socialism will not work out in a capitalist society and this also happens to be for democracy.

    (0)
    Reply
    • Manny Rutinel
      Jul 15, 2014 - 02:08 PM

      Although this was something believed by Marx, I’m not too sure if it is a necessary condition of a socialistic society. I do hope that one day we do learn to distribute our resources in an efficient and fair manner through intelligent planning as opposed to allowing a relatively slow and frequently unfair free-market. Perhaps a computer will be able to complete this task in the near future.

      I do, however, completely agree that the more equal and socialist a society is, the more democratic it is.

      Thank you so much for your thought-provoking and important point!

      (0)
      Reply
  4. nikgee
    Aug 15, 2014 - 10:25 AM

    Hello Manny,I dropped by to thank you for the follow. Feel free to read as much as you like and comment as you will. I want to hear from you. While I am here I am taking the liberty to read some of what you have to say.i am enjoying your feed. It is refreshing to see a thinking mind. And not afraid to take your liberty writing what you feel.

    I too am interested in the value systems that govern our society. Clearly our world is in conflict over which school of thought would best suite the world population. I want to be very clear.i see good in both systems, socialistic and capitalistic.. In their pure form in a perfect world either one of these systems can work. BUT….”.

    (0)
    Reply
  5. nikgee
    Aug 15, 2014 - 12:44 PM

    ….BUT. we don’t live in a perfect. The reality is the system is broken.. But It doesn’t mean the system is bad and must be thrown out no. Repaired. Maybe just maybe we can learn from each other…Yes I said learn from EACH OTHER. Like I said before there is good in both systems. I like you feel basics must be covered. No one should ever be hungry,. Never be without shelter. Never be without clothes on their back. Basic education and medical. No boob jobs…we got to realize here it cost money to operate these programs. It does mean higher taxes.

    With this said I like being able to work a little and buy say a new computer. Maybe two one in the front room and one in the bed room. If you can’t have it . It’s not on the list and you don’t have the men’s to get it. All I can say we humans need motivation.

    There is so much more to be said here. I don’t want to over stay my welcome. I apologize if I was a bit long winded. Anyway I thank you again for the follow and hope to hear from you some time.nick

    (0)
    Reply
    • Manny Rutinel
      Aug 16, 2014 - 05:56 PM

      I COMPLETELY agree with you! I literally have nothing to add to what you said because that is legitimately my position on the matter. Thank you so much for the intelligent words. 😀

      (0)
      Reply
  6. Veronica Lavil
    Aug 23, 2014 - 05:11 PM

    I’ve always said the same thing: people do not realize that we actually live in a somewhat socialist environment (thanks to the police department, fire department, etc.). Such an interesting article. I’ve also read a few others, applause to being so open about your opinions and I feel like we agree on multiple things (also loved your article about healthcare). Thank you for the follow!

    (0)
    Reply
  7. Anjali
    Nov 02, 2014 - 05:24 PM

    A very well written article! I was quite amazed to discover how suspicious people were of socialism in the States (am on the other side of the pond!) viewing it almost as some kind of ‘communistic / state controlled / dictatorship’ that emphasized state control. Not realising that it is actually just the opposite. It’s not perfect – but then no system is and any system is only as good as those who implement it!

    (0)
    Reply
  8. leamuse
    Nov 24, 2014 - 01:27 PM

    Interesting article for me. I left California seven years ago and moved to the south of France. Need I say more?

    Thank you for choosing to follow one of my blogs. I hope you continue to enjoy the posts. Léa

    (0)
    Reply
  9. MTJames
    Nov 27, 2014 - 01:42 PM

    Since you followed The Well-Dressed Branch (thanks much) I wanted to see what you have to say. I read as far as, “even out the playing field,” and the word, “fair.” Everything else you have to say simply expands those concepts.

    As a Christ-follower, I view “depraved” and “deprived” as a cause/effect situation. Because humankind is inherently proud and self-willed, each of us tries to be, “the cream that rises to the top.” Superficially, we might see that as a beneficial drive, but rising to the top is always at the expense of those above whom we rise, leaving groups of “haves” and “have-nots.”

    Upward mobility is a great thing where competence and diligence fuel it, as it does with many successful people, but many others achieve upward mobility through a variety of nefarious means, ascending at the expense of others who are more able and deserving. My question is, who’s to say which individuals deserve economic advancement and which don’t? A bureaucracy?

    Ideally, Government should represent those governed, but in practice it has the unique role of wielding control over a society. If it were a true microcosm of that society it would rule fairly, but it’s not, and it doesn’t. In case you haven’t noticed, money gains control of governments, and thus, of the governed. While socialism may seem to be the remedy for this inequity, who ultimately controls the socialistic state? Are socialists immune to corruption? Of course not! So while capitalism is unfair to the workers who support it, a socialistic bureaucracy only offers a different structure for those who would seek to exploit the workers. Ultimately, the workers serve the power-brokers of both systems.

    If only achieving equity and fairness were as simple as changing a society’s structure, but it’s not. The fundamental problem is spiritual, not economic; mankind’s sinful condition gives sway to all the societal evils you cite, and the only true remedy is spiritual revival.

    I apologize for my long-winded lecture. Thanks again for following my humble blog, and may our loving Lord speak his truth to you.

    (0)
    Reply
    • moonseafish
      Dec 15, 2014 - 02:35 AM

      You speak as though socialism is not better than… what do we campare it to, democracy? You said yourself that our goverment is corrupted, and would you disagree that voting is a waste of time? You can vote someone into their place of power and they can turn around and do anything they please.

      People walk over those they used to get to where they are at. When it comes to the government the problem arises when it comes to the people in charge. People who invet the most into promoting themselves, ads, ect – are more likely to be elected. They are the ones recognized on the blalet, and are chosen. This means that they need money which is provided to them by the companies that want to elect certain policies. That means that it is not the people who choose their government leaders, it is the companies that are “buying” the place of power. That is capitalism hidden behind a mask of democracy.

      I’ll stop there, as you have. Perhaps both are equally as bad.

      Spiritually, you say that humans are born with a sinful condition, and I believe that you are wrong. It is gerneralizing everyone together and giving them the same fault. It is like saying that everyones cancer behaves in the same way. We only give power and placement to those who can fight the hardest for it rather than the people who would behave the best as leaders.

      We weed out the people who are willing to toss everyone else under the bus, everyone who is willing to give up their morals. Because if they don’t they are not seen, they are not recognized. Everyone is forced to focus on themselves, because if they are not they can’t get a job, they can’t stand up for themselves. They are forced to focus on themselves in order to become ANYTHING. they are placed in this state of anxiety, this state of torture and pain where they have to choose between someone else and themselves.

      I hope that you understand when I say it that there are people who would be perfect leaders, perfect people who can take everything into account and not be corrupted in their power. They just are not the ones fighting to be placed in charge, and instead have to be found and placed there.

      I understand that is a challenge, but that is the “ideal,” and a different challenge than that concerning spirituality where everyone and anyone would be incapable leaders who would end up corrupted.

      (0)
      Reply
  10. James Gan
    Dec 09, 2014 - 11:38 PM

    Hi, thank you for your follow. I’m curios to think what you as an American, I’m assuming you’re American, of Australia’s political scene. A member from the socialist-left faction of one of our political parties was elected into government our 2010 Federal Election. Also the state in which I live, Victoria, recently elected a Premier from the socialist-left.

    If you have any spare time you should look into Australian politics. If you ever get sick of American political scene, and I encourage everyone who reads this comment to look into the politics of Australia. For example, in less than half a year we had three Prime Ministers, one from the socialist-left, one from the centre-left and now we have a PM that’s the furthest right out of any of his predecessors.

    (0)
    Reply
  11. Noble Thoughts
    Dec 25, 2014 - 02:28 PM

    Hi,

    Thanks for the lovely article.I indeed enjoyed reading it.
    You have put up some real good points there.I being lived in Moscow myself for few years could understand on what you put up.

    I shall look forward to read more from you and thanks for following me 🙂

    Cheers!!

    (0)
    Reply
  12. The Friendly Phoenix Blogger
    Feb 02, 2015 - 10:55 PM

    I agree with you about the fact that our government should become more socialist and provide large programs to reduce the wealth gap. However, socialism to me has a major issue, which is the fact that it creates, in some instances, not all, a lack of motivation for improvement. We see it on a very small scale now, and it could potentially expand if a more socialist form of government is formed. I see it at my school now, and that is that some kids just don’t care about their education. They just don’t think about the future, and America’s extreme amount of ingenuity and power could be lessened by people who don’t have to worry about there future because the government could provide to much aid. Finding the line between to much government and to little government is hard, and socialism and more socialist policies could lead to much more dire consequences than the consequences that occur now if our government over or under steps its ideological boundaries.

    What a great blog and a great article!

    (0)
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2013 96down. All RIGHTS RESERVED.

>