Is Socialism a Successful Economic Model? Part 1

Welcome to the third post of this series on socialism.  In the next two posts, we will look at failed examples of socialism. The truth is socialism has been tried many times throughout the world over the last century. In every example, it failed miserably. There are so many examples of failed socialism that we can’t cover them all in this post. We need to split it into two posts. Even then it would be hard to list every example without writing a book. For the sake of time I will rely on a few videos to present some of the detailed information. So now I will present my case as to how Marxian Socialism has failed in the promise of elevating workers and raising poverty levels. Instead, it has brought about brutal dictatorships that have killed a massive amount of innocent people.

When you hear some progressives talk today they seem to make the claim that socialism has been a successful model in the past. According to them, it only failed under some governments but not all governments. They will point to certain governments in Europe today and claim that in some cases socialism works. They make the bogus claim that some examples of socialism in the past have failed, but there are examples that we can see today that seem to indicate that it can be successful. Then they drive this next point home. “Socialism can work, it just needs to be done by the right people.” These are their talking points, but are these claims true? Does socialism provide a better economy? Does it reduce poverty? In this post we are going to explore these questions. We will trace the history of socialism and see what the real story tells.

We are talking about Marxian Socialism. These concepts originate with Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. Karl Mark wrote the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels also collaborated on a work called Das Capital. The primary theories and definitions of socialism are spelled out in these writings. So let’s look at the history.

Soviet Union

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov is better known by the alias Lenin. He was born on April 22, 1870. He was a politician, political theorist, and a Russian communist revolutionary. He was the head of Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1922 and then of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1924. Under his leadership, Russia became the wider Soviet Union. This was a one-party communist state governed by the Russian Communist Party. Lenin was ideologically a Marxist. He built on that foundation and developed his own political theories which are known as Leninism.

Lenin was born to a wealthy middle-class family. He embraced revolutionary socialist politics following his brother’s execution in 1887. He moved to Saint Petersburg in 1893 and became a Marxist activist. In 1897, he was arrested for sedition and exiled to Shushenskoye for three years. After his exile, he moved to Western Europe, where he became a prominent theorist in the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party or RSDLP.

When Lenin finally took power his administration issued a series of decrees. The first was a Decree on Land. This decree declared that the landed estates of the aristocracy and the Orthodox Church should be nationalized and redistributed to peasants through local governments. This conflicted with Lenin’s desire for agricultural collectivization, but the decree provided governmental recognition of the widespread peasant land seizures that had already occurred. In November 1917, the government issued a decree on the press. After that point it controlled all media outlets. In November 1917, another decree was issued abolishing Russia’s legal system and calling on the use of “revolutionary conscience” to replace the abolished laws. The courts were replaced with “Revolutionary Tribunals” to address counter-revolutionary crimes, and People’s Courts to deal with civil and other criminal offenses. They were instructed to ignore pre-existing laws, and base all rulings on the Sovnarkom decrees and a “socialist sense of justice”.

In September 1917, Lenin published “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”. He argued that imperialism was a product of monopoly capitalism. He believed capitalists sought to increase their profits by extending into new territories where wages were lower and raw materials were cheaper. He believed that competition and conflict would increase and that war between the imperialist powers would continue until they were overthrown by a proletariat revolution with an end result of established socialism. In this way social justice would be achieved.

Lenin was a devout Marxist, and believed that his interpretation of Marxism was the sole authentic and orthodox one. Lenin’s interpretations were first termed “Leninism” by Martov in 1904. According to his Marxist view humanity would eventually reach pure communism. First it would become a stateless, classless, egalitarian society of workers who were free from exploitation from capitalists. They would control their own destiny and abide by the rule “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Lenin thought that the path he was setting Russia on would ultimately lead to the establishment of this communist society. Lenin’s Marxist perspectives led him to the view that society could not transform directly from its present state to communism. It must first enter a period of socialism. Because of this belief, his main objective was how to convert Russia into a socialist society with a socialist economy. In order to do this he believed that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” was necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie. He defined socialism as “an order of civilized co-operators in which the means of production are socially owned”, and believed that this economic system had to be expanded until it could create a society of abundance.

In order to achieve this, he sought to bring the Russian economy under state control. This was his central concern. Lenin said “all citizens” becoming “hired employees of the state”. Lenin’s interpretation of socialism was centralized, planned, and statist, with both production and distribution strictly controlled. His calls for “workers’ control” of the means of production did not refer to the direct control of enterprises by their workers, but it really meant the operation of all enterprises under the control of a “workers’ state”. This is pretty much the path that all Marxian Socialists take.

When the revolution first took place it lasted four years. After a bloody four-year struggle Lenin won, establishing the Soviet Union in 1922. It had an estimated cost of 15 million lives and billions of rubles. Poverty levels rose sharply and the land faced famine because of the war. Under Lenin, thousands of people were killed in something called Red Terror. With Vladimir Lenin’s approval, 50,000 white prisoners of war and civilians were executed via shooting or hanging after the defeat of General Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel. This occurred at the end of 1920 during the civil war in Russia. They had been promised amnesty if they would surrender. Russia was the first place where true socialism was established and it only brought death and poverty.

Joseph Stalin was born on December 18th 1878. He was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953. He was among the Bolshevik revolutionaries who took part in the Russian Revolution of 1917. Lenin had Stalin appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1922. This post allowed Stalin to appoint many of his allies to high government positions. He managed to consolidate power following the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924. He did this by expanding the functions of his role while at the same time eliminating any opposition. He began serving as the Premier of the Soviet Union after establishing the position in 1941.

Over the years many people have tried to calculate the number of people killed by Stalin. Here is a partial breakdown according to historians that used Soviet records. The Soviets executed 158,000 soldiers for desertion during the war. There are official records of 799,455 executions between 1921-53. Historians estimate that nearly 700,000 people (353,074 in 1937 and 328,612 in 1938) were executed in a reign of terror. 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – with a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.

Other estimates of people killed including executions equal 1.5 million, Gulags equal 5 million, deportations equal 1.7 million out of 7.5 million, and POWs and German civilians equal 1 million. This is a total of about 9 million victims. If famine victims are included due to resettlement and land confiscation then there was a minimum of around 10 million deaths added to this number. It breaks down to 6 million from famine and 4 million more from other causes which are attributable to Stalin’s regime. Some historians suggesting a likely total of around 20 million people were killed under Stalin. After the cold war more records were open to America and numbers were revised. American political scientist RJ Rummel believes 60 million died under Stalin. I think the number is closer to 23 million.

Poverty levels remained high under Stalin’s rule. Many farms where confiscated and many people lost land through Russia’s redistribution efforts.


Nazism is also known as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party According to historians. It was a totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. With its intense nationalism and dictatorial rule, Nazism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme in its practice and in its ideas. It was an anti-intellectual movement emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of all people. Nazism also held a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

Hitler would often declare that the Nazi party was socialist in speeches. However, the assumption that the country was socialist because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas appeared in the writings and speeches of top Nazis is a bit naive. On the contrary, what the evidence shows is different altogether. The truth is the Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal which was raw totalitarian power. I believe that having the appearance of socialism simply rallied more people to their cause. As people joined the party, they more than likely believed they were part of a socialist revolution.

I don’t believe Hitler was ever a socialist. This is because he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and he disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their business. Germany’s economy did very well in the 1930’s. However, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. This is why some claim that socialism was part of the platform in the Nazi party. Capitalism was left in place, but in operation, it was turned into an adjunct of the state. Socialism is complete state control of industry. That was not German policy. If you doubt this then watch the movie Schindlers’ List. You will see how capitalism, although limited, worked within the state. However, similar to socialism policy, all Jewish businesses were seized.

Immediately after taking office Hitler instituted what he called “Racial Hygiene.” Between 1934 and 1937 over 400,000 people were deemed unfit by the Nazi regime. These people went through forced sterilization. Then Hitler sought to euthanize people. Hitler sought genocide of the Jewish people. This was driven by his beliefs in eugenics. During the course of the war millions of Jews would die. There were extermination camps set up. The Auschwitz camp preformed experiments in eugenics. The most infamous doctor at Auschwitz was Josef Mengele. He performed many cruel experiments on people in the camp. He was known as “The Angel of Death”. In total Hitler’s regime killed 11 million of his own people. Millions of Jews also died.


In 1916 Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. At that time, Great Britain’s empire had grown into the dominant place among the world’s industrialized nations. At that same point in history, the United States and Argentina competed for the world’s second most powerful economy. Like the United States, Argentina had huge acres of farmlands filled with rivers and an accessible port system. Argentina’s level of industrialization was much higher than in many European countries. Telephones, railroads, and automobiles were common among the people and they could be found everywhere.

In 1916 Argentina elected a new president. Hipolito Irigoyen from a newly formed political party known as the Radicals. Under the  slogan of “Fundamental Change” and with the appeal of the middle class he instituted socialist policies. Among some of Irigoyen’s changes, he instituted mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing in an effort to stimulate the economy which was already booming. The state assumed economic control of a major part of the country’s operations. They began assessing new payroll taxes to fund their efforts.

With a vast increase in funds for these entitlement programs, Argentina’s payouts became overly generous. Before long the entitlement programs surpassed the value of the taxpayer’s contributions. It quickly became underfunded. The economy started a downward spiral.

The economy fell after the election of Juan Peron. He was a fascist and had a corporatist upbringing. Peron and his charismatic wife Eva aimed their rhetoric at taxing the nation’s wealthy and rich, but this targeted group quickly expanded to include the middle class who later became an enemy that needed to be defeated. Propaganda targeting the rich also targeted the middle class.

Under Peron, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through the use of massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions. These programs provided government jobs and attracted the peons from the haciendas which led to large reductions in beef and wheat production.

Peron had been driven from office, but the high taxes and economic mismanagement laid the foundation for poverty after he left. His populist rhetoric and contempt for real economics lived on. Argentina’s federal government continued to spend well beyond its means. By the 1970s  inflation was so bad that taxi cab drivers were issued a printed chart each morning. The meter reading was adjusted using the daily chart in order to determine the fare. Now Argentina was importing wheat and beef when at one time these items were vital exports.  Hyperinflation exploded in 1989 due to industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and the growing state intervention with the economy. All socialism ends this way without exception.

The Argentinean government’s policy of printing incredible amounts of money to pay off its public debts which were caused by socialism crushed the economy. Hyperinflation hit 3,000 percent. Food riots were now commonplace. Stores were looted, and the country descended into chaos. By 1994, Argentina’s public pension had imploded. This was the equivalent of our social security program. The payroll tax on the middle class increased from 5 percent to 26 percent. Argentina also implemented a value-added tax also known as VAT tax. New taxes crushed the private sector and further damaged the economy. By 2002 the Government’s fiscal irresponsibility paved the way to an economic crisis that was equal to the Great Depression. In 1902 Argentina was one of the world’s richest countries. One hundred years later it is poverty-stricken and it is struggling to meet its debt obligations. This is the type of financial chaos that is caused by socialism.


Cuba is another place that has been devastated by socialism and communism. In the 1950s, various organizations, including some advocating an armed uprising, competed for public support in bringing about political change. In 1956, Fidel Castro and about 80 supporters landed from the yacht Granma in an effort to begin a rebellion against the Batista government. Batista’s government, although capitalist, was also brutal and corrupt. It was not until the summer of 1958 that Castro’s movement emerged as the leading revolutionary group.

By late 1958 the rebels had broken out of the Sierra Maestra and launched a general insurrection that became popular. After Castro’s fighters captured Santa Clara, Batista and his family fled to the Dominican Republic on January 1st, 1959. Later Batista went into exile on the Portuguese island of Madeira.  He finally settled in Estoril, near Lisbon. Fidel Castro’s forces entered the capital on 8 January 1959. The liberal Manuel Urrutia Lleó became the provisional president.

From 1959 to 1966 Cuban insurgents fought a six-year rebellion in the Escambray Mountains against the Castro government. The U.S. State Department has estimated that 3,200 people were executed from 1959 to 1962. According to Amnesty International, official death sentences from 1959–87 numbered 237 of which all but 21 were actually carried out. Other estimates for the total number of political executions range from 4,000 to 33,000. The vast majority of those executed directly following the 1959 revolution were policemen, politicians, and informers of the Batista regime. Many of these people were accused of crimes such as torture and murder, and their public trials and executions had widespread popular support among the Cuban population. Many innocent people died as well. Some were falsely accused.

The state wasted no time seizing control of industry. Cuba’s imports grew after the revolution and at the same time, their exports fell. The newly formed Cuban government started to receive financial assistance from the Soviet Union. Once the cold war ended the Soviets cut off their assistance and Cuba experienced a high level of poverty. State run industry has always been a failure in post revolutionary Cuba. It was harder to detect when the Soviets were underwriting their losses.

CIA report on Cuba after the revolution declassified

Che Guevara was born in Argentina. He is thought of as a hero by the liberal elites, but this man has killed many people. He is responsible for assisting in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and in the end he died a coward’s death.  Watch the videos below to learn more about him.


There are about 40 countries around the world today that have embraced socialism. I have only covered a few of them in this post. In every case each country failed economically. The promises of a socialist workers paradise followed by economic freedom never came to pass. Socialism’s promise of being free from exploitation has never materialized. Karl Marx wrote about the benefits of socialism. What he did not know is the fact that none of these benefits really existed. Today our young people share that same dilemma.

Socialism has taken its toll. In many cases people were executed either for their belief in capitalism, for the support of the old government, or for their belief in Christianity. Many innocent people were killed who had never had an economic worldview.  Over 100,000,000 people were executed in the name of socialism. In the next post, we will cover more places were socialism has failed, and point out misconceptions regarding socialism in Europe.

Socialism in America Today

In the last article we did a brief overview of socialism. If you have not read it you can click here. We are now going to continue our commentary on this topic. Unfortunately, there exists in our society today the untold story of socialism. Millions have died because of this philosophy. While many of the liberals on the left seem to cling to this economic model, they seem to be unfamiliar with the empty promises and destruction that lie in its path. Socialism has always failed everywhere it was tried. Not only is history filled with examples, but there are some modern-day examples we can look at too. However, we will get to that in the next post.

In this post we will talk about the many ways socialism has attached itself to the Democratic Party. Socialism has been there for a while, but now they are not even trying to hide it anymore. It is out in the open for all to see. As the party moves more to the left they seem to have abandoned all the moderate Democrats. This is no longer the party of Jefferson, and it does not even hold the values of John Kennedy anymore. He once said “ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country”, while socialism promises free college, free health care, and many other free things from the government that are  brought about through a redistribution of profit and control of industries. The problem seems to be that socialism has been misrepresented by those on the left. The promise of free stuff in a redistribution of wealth never works out as planned. Those who line up to get their free government-run services always become slaves to the system.

Capitalism is not a perfect model either, and there are problems with it. We will cover that in much more detail in an upcoming post. While capitalism creates a middle class and a better life for some, there are some people who remain poor while other people become wealthy. Socialism destroys the middle class and transfers all wealth to the state. Greed is therefore found on every level of government. Absolute control and freedom is handed over to any government instituting socialism over time. This is one reason why Vladimir Lenin famously said “The goal of socialism is communism.”

Socialism begins by creating class envy. Karl Marx called it the struggle of classes. Key phrases in the Democratic platform like “tax breaks for the rich”, references to the “one percent”, and raising taxes on the wealthy are designed to create the envy needed to insert heavy taxation. This taxation has never stopped with the so-called one percent. It has always filtered down to small businesses and the middle class. When jobs are cut as a result of this heavy tax burden, the Democrats attempt to make a dependent class that will keep them in power. There are some elements of taxation that is not socialism. That is because taxation to provide public civic services such as roads, water treatment, and so on is not Marxian Socialism, especially if it is done by the state and local governments. As we have already pointed out, there is a difference between providing civic services and controlling the wealth and production of industries. We can already see the struggle of classes and the attempt by Democrats to redistribute some of the wealth of industry in order to create a more socialist society  through creating heavy tax burdens. More on that later.

Bernie Sanders

Let’s look at socialism in the Democratic Party today. Bernie Sanders is probably the most famous socialist in the party today, and everyone knows him from his presidential run against Hillary Clinton. The evidence that he is a socialist is found in part by examining his policies. Sanders also makes the claim that he is a socialist. See video below.

Later on in life Sanders re-brands himself as a “Democratic Socialist”, and he sites FDR. Today, Bernie Sanders at times calls himself a socialist, and sometimes he calls himself a “democratic socialist”. He believes there is no difference in the meaning. His real inspiration comes from a guy called Eugene Debs

Despite Sanders’ supporters’ enthusiasm for socialism and/or communism, they do not really know what those terms mean. Communism and socialism have never been successful at creating a Socialist Workers Paradise. This is one of the main promises in the sales pitch. The Communist Manifesto was not about fighting Big Business. It was pitting the workers which were called the “proletariat” against the middle class which were called the “bourgeois”. This is why socialism always pulls the middle class down. This is the classic textbook struggle of social classes. This is Marxian Socialism, and it is based on the writings of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. Bernie Sanders is echoing some of the same concepts, but they are slightly re-branded. However, socialism recorded in history does not line up with what many of these Bernie Sanders supporters say about socialism.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is another socialist. She was among a group of nationwide Social Justice Democrats that had their candidacies announced and live-streamed on May 16, 2017. Ocasio-Cortez was the first person since 2004 to challenge the incumbent Democratic Caucus Chair, Joe Crowley. He represented the 7th district from 1999 to 2013. He became Chair of the House Democratic Caucus in 2017. He also has been Chair of the Queens County Democratic Party since 2006. He was a well established democrat. According to the media, Ocasio-Cortez discovered she had also won a primary in her neighboring district after being spontaneously entered as a write-in candidate by voters in the competition to pick a candidate for the obscure Reform Party. She is a rising star in the media and from within her party.

Ocasio-Cortez belongs to the Democratic Socialists of America. And she has the backing of Bernie Sanders’ “Our Revolution” political group.

She also has a degree in economics, but she really does not know what she is talking about.

Andrew Gillum

Andrew Gillum is running for governor in Florida. He has the backing of George Soros, Bernie Sanders, and Tom Steyer.  Gillum has been serving as Mayor of Tallahassee, Florida since 2014. Gillum has been classified as a progressive, and is considered to be a politician in the mold of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders who is the highest-ranking elected official to support his primary candidacy. Even though he brands himself as progressive many policies are based on socialism.

Gillum has also served as lead commissioner for the Long Range Community Based Target Issue Committee. In 2005, Gillum was one of the commissioners who voted to give themselves a new retirement benefit through deferred compensation. The policy was later repealed by the commission after public outrage.

Yet Many Democrats still deny that their party is becoming more socialist in spite of the evidence placed before them. This move to the left has made many moderate democrats disillusioned by the direction of their party.

Control of Industry

As we discussed in the last post, capitalism says that companies get to control the profit of industries. They get to choose where to invest and what products to develop. Socialism says that government controls the wealth and production of industry. One of the first industries taken over by socialists is typically the healthcare industry. Socialists seek to make a government controlled monopoly out of health care. This accounts for about 17.9 percent of the GDP in America today. This socialist healthcare system is known as a “single payer” system. Under this system government is the one who pays for health care – usually through heavy taxation. Strict laws are in place. Socialists in America today like to brag about the efficiency of Canada’s single payer system, but they leave out many of the problems associated with this system. (See video below.)

Canada has the worst wait times of any nation, and yet their healthcare has been presented by liberals to be one of the best in the world.

Most of these democrats make the dubious claim that our healthcare system is a failure of capitalism. They seem to pretend that The Affordable Care Act never existed, and everything is the fault of capitalism. How did our healthcare system get this screwed up to begin with? While healthcare was an issue that needed to be addressed before Obama Care, government intervention screwed everything up and made it much worse. Before Obama Care my family premiums where about $350.00 a month. My deductible was about $500.00 and my family deductible was $750.00. Immediately after Obama Care passed my premiums skyrocketed to well over $600.00 a month and my personal deductible went up to $4,000.00, while my family deductible went up to over $8,000.00. I lost my doctor because he was no longer a part of the insurance plan. I have not seen a doctor in years. Eventually, I had to change plans and the cost is outrageous. Today my personal deduction is $4,300.00. Prescription drugs also sharply increased due to backroom deals Obama made with pharmaceutical companies. America now pays more for prescriptions than any other country in the world. The healthcare in America is not overpriced due to a free market as Democrats would have you believe. The healthcare system is screwed up directly due to government intervention.

This could be fixed without a single payer system. This is not the fault of capitalism. This is the fault of government meddling in the free market. This is corporatism at its finest. When I say “corporatism” I am referring to economic tripartism  which involves negotiations between business, labor, and state interest groups to establish economic policy. This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism, and is associated with social democracy.

The real truth is Obama has always wanted a single payer socialist system. Yet when The Affordable Care Act was first rolled out it was not a single payer system. He knew he could not get a single payer system passed into law. (See video below.)

It is my personal belief that Obama made a system designed to fail so the Democrats could eventually move to a single payer system. Obama made backroom deals with private companies to drive up the cost on things like prescription drugs and health care premiums. This would be with the understanding that his successor (Hillary Clinton) would be hailed as the savior of health care. She would come into office and move the nation to a single payer system, and democrats would control 17.9 percent of the GDP! That has been their plan all along.

The only problem is, Hillary lost and Donald Trump won. That ruined their plans. Now it’s time for plan B. Now Bernie Sanders is advocating for a single payer system while the government still has the old Obama Care law in place. This keeps the cost of healthcare extremely high. Healthcare reform is desperately needed, and the Democrats are trying to push the country into a socialist system. There is no market in the healthcare industry that is totally free today. It is drastically controlled by government regulation. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are making record profits thanks to the deals Obama made with them. Bernie’s plan is called “Medicare for All”. This is strong evidence that socialism has attached itself to the Democratic Party.

The Communist Manifesto

In 1847, a group of radical workers known as the “Communist League” met in London. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels recently became members. They commissioned Marx and  Engels to write a manifesto on their behalf. This became  known as the Communist Manifesto. Marx was the main author, while Engels provided editing and assistance. The Communist Manifesto was originally published in London in 1848. Of all the documents of modern socialism, it is the most widely read and the most influential document. It is the systematic statement of the philosophy that is known as Marxism. It outlines what socialism really is. It calls  for a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large.

Marx and Engels were not satisfied with theorizing about revolution in the abstract.  They thought their theory was only useful to promote social change. By clarifying the proper means and ends of revolution they were not only acting as authors, they were also activists. The promise of a socialist workers paradise drove many to support socialism. Many of the policies outlined in the Communist Manifesto are attached to a variety of democratic platforms in America today. Let’s just look at a few. What was the Communist Manifesto’s stated agenda and plan  to bring about the Socialist Workers’ Paradise?

1.      A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. This is why democrats support steeply rising tax rates.

2.      Abolition of all rights of inheritance.  This is why Democrats are always fighting to preserve the Estate Tax’s confiscatory rate on substantial estates. Even estate tax on small farms has caused many families to lose their land.

3.      Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

4.      Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

5.  Free education for all children in public schools. Combining education with industrial production, this explains the staunch opposition to School Choice that comes from the Democratic party.

4.      Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.      Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.      Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. Here we see the real reason for “net neutrality”.

This is just a partial list containing a few socialist policies which have become part of the democratic platform.

The Democrats remain largely invested in   re-branding socialism.  They have  renamed it “Democratic Socialism”. I plan to write about it in more detail in an upcoming post. But for now the video below explains it pretty well.


What is Socialism?

Iraq Currency Watch started off by evaluating and analyzing the Iraqi dinar as an investment. From there we started to look at other currencies. That led to a study on how currencies work, and that led to a four-year study on global economics. We have been writing about economics since 2010. When ever you discuss and research these topics you will eventually compare economic models that nations have used in the past with current economic models. Today, Iraq Currency Watch covers false doctrines associated with global economics. These doctrines are used to push fraud and investment scams. With this background in mind I would like to cover and define the economic model of socialism and its impact on our society and culture today. In this next series we will define what true socialism is and uncover its past. It seems that this topic is misrepresented in universities around the world.

I was always baffled with the amount of supporters Bernie Sanders has. I could never understand why so many young people believed in the promises of socialism so passionately. Then I encountered some of these people and it became apparent that they don’t really know what socialism is. Their definition is skewed. Eventually, I had nieces and nephews that were enrolled at various universities. Soon after their first few classes they began preaching socialist concepts. They explained to me that we already have socialism and that it has been very successful. They claimed that the fire department is socialism. The police department is socialism. Government making public roads is socialism. In fact, these new socialists believe that almost every public government function is some form of socialism.

Today’s socialists have no understanding of real history or economics in general. They seem to have the misunderstanding that anything that has the word “social” in it is socialism. It would not surprise me if they believed social media is some new form of socialism. They believe that socialism in Europe has been extremely successful. They are so brained-washed that they even believe capitalism made most Americans poor while socialism made everyone in Europe rich. Don’t believe me, Look at their propaganda.

The article above claims that capitalism has made Americans poor while socialism has made Europeans rich. This author acts like the middle class is under great oppression in America today. Can this guy be more out of touch? He even ignores history in his ill-informed opinion on socialism and he redefines it into something entirely different. But this is a good example of what most Bernie Sanders followers believe today.

Today, liberals have changed the very meaning of socialism to be anything where a social good or service is provided by some form of government; be it local, state, or federal. To them that is socialism, but that modern definition coined by liberal think tanks to be inserted into talking points is not the standard socialism that many of us historically refer to. This would mean that every form of government is socialist, and that is certainly not the case. When I say “socialism” I am referring to Marxian Socialism. In this model, the path to socialism proceeds not through the establishment of model communities that set examples of harmonious cooperation to the world in a utopian society, but through the clash and struggle of social classes. This concept of socialism is defined according to the writings of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels.

In essence, socialism and capitalism are economic models that concern themselves primarily with what’s done with the surplus product created by profitable industries. Capitalism says that the profits belong to the owner of the business and it is up to them to determine pretty much every aspect of running their business. Socialism, either through state-control regulatory bodies or workers’ councils, carries out the will of the workers to equitably redistribute all the wealth created by state-controlled industries. All the wealth and production of industries is controlled by the state in this model.

With that in mind, the fire department does not generate a profit, the police do not participate in manufacturing goods, students do not receive wages for their “work” and libraries do not typically sell products in order to become wealthy. Collecting taxes to pay for public services and welfare programs is not the socialism Karl Marx is speaking of. This is not his true model and definition. Every modern country has roads, public schools, and police officers.  That does not make them inherently socialist. Ancient Rome even built public roads, public bath houses, and public aqueducts, but this doesn’t mean they invented socialism. How much net profit did the fire department make last year? How much production and gross revenue did the police department generate? We are talking about a Marxist economic model for government. How is it that liberals can’t differentiate between basic civic services and nationalizing private industries? The socialism I am talking about failed in many countries, and Venezuela is the latest example. Changing the meaning of socialism to “government social services” has confused many Bernie Sanders supporters. It really is a disservice to all the millions of people who died by the hand of Marxian Socialism.

Socialism Limits Freedom

Socialism by its very existence denies freedom to its citizens. One of the biggest problems with real Marxian Socialism is the loss of freedom. Political freedom, as defined by Milton Friedman, includes the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the right to vote. Government ownership of the means of production means you loose private property rights. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks no longer apply. All assets can be redistributed by the government. This is why socialists put great faith in bigger government. While they make the argument that capitalism is greedy, they seem to ignore the fact that greed is found in socialism too. It’s not the corporations that are greedy in this model; it is the very governments that rule the people and have total control of industry that becomes greedy. As the state becomes more powerful personal freedoms are stripped away. Greed is found in communism as well. History is full of examples.

Freedom is the hallmark of the American market economy. Its underlying institutional foundations are individual rights, private property, and freedom of association and exchange in a political setting of limited government under the impartial rule of law. These are the things that are guaranteed by our constitution. This is what has been handed to us by our founding fathers because they understood oppression under British rule. It is the American constitution that limits the role of government. It is the very thing that guarantees real freedom.

When judges believe they should present decisions based on the original intent of our founding fathers our freedoms are preserved. Some Judges believe that the constitution is a living document and that it should be interpreted through the lens of our modern-day society. The only problem is this belief gives an abundance of power to supreme court judges to legislate from the bench and change the very document that guarantees  freedom for all. Liberal socialists know that the only way they can get socialism in America today is to change the constitution. They can’t vote it in and they can’t create laws to bring about socialist policies without being challenged by the court system. Their only hope is to fill the supreme court with judges that will introduce socialist policies through their rulings and uphold liberal laws that congress creates. This explains the hidden motives behind the brutal attacks to supreme court nominees from the liberals today.

Under socialism, one person’s freedom becomes another person’s obligation. past examples show that poverty actually increases in socialism because the middle class is pulled down to a lower class in this great struggle of classes. Because of this climate people tend to be confused about material abundance and cultural comfort in Western nations. Many socialists have forgotten that this is not man’s “natural state of affairs.” It is only the result of America’s unique constitution and institutions that have enabled prosperity to replace poverty. This is why many have come to the United States in search of a better life. The opportunity in America can be maintained and improved upon only to the extent that the very same ideas and institutions protect, nurture and foster a future better than today,

Yet, Karl Marx believed the only “free” man is one who does not have to work, save, and produce to have food, clothing, housing, education, and medical care, or any other everyday necessities required for life. That is precisely what  Bernie Sanders regurgitates  now, “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. ” To have to work for what you want by definition makes you not free.”

The Marxist view of freedom is freedom as emancipation or freedom from exploitation.  Later  in his life , Marx emphasized more on structural factors thus  his idea of freedom evolved to be freedom from structures of exploitations.  Labor was  often viewed as explotaion. To put it another way, any human activity that is an economical means to a desired end or goal is a manifestation of a lack of “real’ freedom. Anything lacking a life of playful enjoyment with all the related means and material possessions to that enjoyment being effortlessly available represents man as a slave to his circumstances and environment. All Industry only serves to exploit him. A socialist’s view of freedom is simply out of touch with reality. They limit the freedom of others while trying to implement their own twisted idea of liberty.

Stefan Molyneux

I thought Stefan Molyneux had an interesting point of view. He was once a socialist and now his beliefs changed. While I don’t agree with everything he says, he does have some valid points.

The Iraqi Dinar Devalued-No RV (Revalue)

You heard right. The rate just adjusted again. It is now trading at 1190 to one U.S. dollar. Sam i am predicted the rate would drop a while back on a conference call. So with that in mind an updated conference call just took place. Topics include how far the rate will drop and the future of the dinar. Here is the call in its entirety.

Of course, many of the dinar holders on YouTube did not like this news. We have been going at it pretty hard and heavy in the comment section. Some of the commenters came back and deleted their comments when they realized we were telling the truth. One of the people who has been leaving comments is a guy by the name of haissemweneht. When we were talking about the strength of the dollar he had this to say

“Remember when gasoline was worth 1 dollar per gallon? The value of the US Dollar is 14 – 16 percent less than a few years ago. Now gas is 3 dollars. I would say that the dollar is worthless.”

This is total GCR propaganda nonsense and this is what these guys do. They confuse economic terms and rant like idiots! The big mistake in this GCR talking point is the fact that they are taking a nominal inflation rate and judging the strength of the dollar by it to make the claim that the dollar has lost global value.  These are actually two different things blended together to look like one thing. They are comparing inflation rates with exchange rates and claiming the dollar is weak!

First, we are talking about the global value of one currency against another currency. Let me give you an example. When we were invested in the dinar it took 1166 dinar to get one U.S. dollar. Today it takes 1190 dinar to get one U.S. dollar. This means that the value of the dinar has gone down and the value of the dollar has gone up. In fact, if you research this you will discover that the dollar is a lot stronger globally than most people know!

We are not talking about national purchasing power. We are talking about exchange rates not Inflation rates! If we were talking about inflation then it would only be fair to compare the United States inflation rates with other inflation rates. Let’s take his gas example. Gas went over a dollar in the 1980’s. In 1986 Gas was about 1.18 a gallon. That was 32 years ago. Now let’s look at what gas cost in England 32 years ago and compare that price with today’s price in England. By this dumb logic we would conclude that the pound is completely unstable.

Every country has inflation. That is a side effect of a decent economy. When the economy goes bad you have deflation or worse, hyperinflation. All currencies lose purchasing power over time. Even the dinar loses purchasing power and it had hyperinflation during the 1990’s. He was comparing the inflation rate of the dollar with the exchange rate of the dinar. These are two different animals and it is a really bad argument. The dollar is strong compared to other currencies, not inflation rates.

This is the type of typical GCR nonsense used to sell precious metals and dinar gurus steal the same talking points. They need the dollar to tank in their presentations in a feeble attempt to make the dinar look like a good investment.

Just as a side note, look at the name of our commenter who was spreading this nonsense. The name haissemweneht is actually the new messiah spelled backwards! I don’t think I would trust anyone who has a name like that. Thanks to Nash for pointing that out!