A Brief Summary of: Communism, Socialism, Capitalism

This post will be short and sweet. It's come to my attention that when people speak of these three economic theories that there is a lot of confusion about what each one means. People constantly confuse these ideas with forms of government. Most capitalists don't really understand what capitalism means, and even more so confuse Socialism with Communism. Often those who confuse Socialism with Communism ask to be explained the difference, and most explanations don't do a good job of separating the two spheres of thought. Even when going straight to the dictionary source to define these ideas, you might still come away confused about what the differences are. So here's a simple breakdown that should be easy to understand.

Communism:

The state or government owns a monopoly in every trade and industry in the market. They don't have competitors in agriculture, weapons manufacturing, military, police, education, etc. They own a monopoly in every market. Period. Every employee is a government employee.

Definition:
"a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property"

Socialism:

The state or government owns a monopoly in certain markets. Depending on the type of government (republic, dictatorship, etc) the ruler(s) decide which markets the state owns a monopoly in, and which markets they will not. The constitution laid out details about what government should own a monopoly in, and left other markets up for our republic to decide. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution specifies this:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

So any time someone says that the government shouldn't get involved in things like healthcare, because it's unconstitutional, understand that their argument is not in defense of the Constitution, but instead in defense of Capitalism. They want the market to be privately owned. 'General Welfare' is one of the governments constitutionally written, agreed to, and understood duties from which one could easily argue that Universal Healthcare could be considered a part of.

Socialism is not only the government owning a monopoly in a market, but also regulating the markets that they don't have a monopoly in. (regulations like telling a company they can't put lead in our water, or that a car company has to build cars that have a certain level of fuel efficiency). Capitalists will argue that these are unconstitutional as well. Again, they're not arguing for the constitution, they're arguing for their economic theory of Capitalism.

Definition:
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Capitalism:

Capitalism is when the government does not own a monopoly in any market. Quite literally this theory is the 'anarchy' of economic theories. If your business wants to sell water laced with cocaine, no one should be able to tell you that you can't.

Definition:
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

--

Often these economic theories get mistaken with forms of government rule. Capitalism is mistaken for democracy, or a republic. Communism gets mistaken for dictatorships and authoritarian rule. And Socialism gets confused with anything and everything because few understand what it actually is.

Now these aren't black and white definitions. These are terms that exist on an ever expanding scale (expanding because markets expand, new technologies develop new markets, etc) On this scale you'll find Communism on the left, Socialism at the center, and Capitalism on the right. Understand that although this scale is expanding, pure Capitalism will always be to the far most right, and pure Communism will always be to the far most left. There really is no such thing as pure Socialism, because it can't be given a definitive position in what markets government should own. It's always up to the form of government to decide which markets the government will own and which they won't.

So if you're a Capitalist, understand that the moment you agree that government should disallow a business to lace water with cocaine, you haven't necessarily become a Socialist. You've simply taken a step towards the Socialist ideology and a step away from pure Capitalism.

Every regulation you believe a market should have, is a step towards Socialism. Every market you believe government should have a business in (public option), is a step towards Socialism. Every market you believe government should own a monopoly in, is a step towards Communism.

I hope this helps you to not only understand these terms, but how to differentiate them from forms of government.

Cheers.

Tyler Glenn: Mormon Trash

If you haven't heard or seen, there's a new music video out by a gay Mormon singer/songwriter, entitled 'Trash'. The controversial video shows the singer Glenn dressed in satanic attire, spitting on an altered picture of the LDS founder Joseph Smith while singing, 'You baptized me when I wasn't ready.'

The video ends with him in an elevator, reenacting sacred Mormon handshakes, and painting a big red X across his face. The final scene has him singing 'Maybe I'll see you in hell", and passing out on a floor covered in ripped pages of what one would assume used to make up the Book of Mormon.

The video has sparked outrage and disgust from some Mormons, while garnering support from the LGBT community and ex-Mormons.

So how does someone go from publicly defending their Mormon faith to brazenly mocking it in the span of just a few years?

While it's easy to feel insulted and injured from this kind of vulgarity towards Mormons, there is a long history one should walk through before reaching any kind of objective conclusion about whether Glenn's vilification of Mormonism is baseless or well-deserved.

So let's take a walk down memory lane, where we'll revisit some of the politics and rhetoric surrounding gays and Mormons. Our first stop? California, 2008.

Proposition 8

 

2008 was an odd year for me. I'd recently returned home from serving an LDS mission, and was currently living with my brother and sister in the heart of Mormon-dom (Orem/Provo, Utah). Oh, and I'd recently come out to my family and friends as an Atheist. I had no ill will towards Mormons, and still had found feelings towards their members and leaders. I was trying to find a balance between spirituality and science that would satisfy me. So when I heard what was happening in California, I wasn't sure what to think. From family and friends I'd heard that if gays were given the right to marry, they could force catholic priests to marry them, something I was adamantly against. But I felt it wrong that the LGBT community couldn't have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. So in an act of fairness I found the middle ground, where I was sure the truth would be, and supported civil unions.

I'm sure this is how many Mormons today, who are sympathetic towards gays, try to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory views. Desperately trying to find some middle ground, so as to be fair to both their faith, and their gay family/friends.

But I can assure you: If you are a Mormon who's sympathetic towards gays - In the end you will only discover what Glenn has finally figured out himself. Simply put, there is no middle ground. And the longer you try to find it, the more shame you will feel from one side or the other.

In reminiscing about this time period , I decided to look up some of the ads that ran on Prop 8. Watching these now - a part of me wants to laugh, a part of me wants to cry, and a part of me wishes some people would contract a severe illness.

 

 

A confused child drearily carries on a conversation with her two fathers. Questioning, "If gays are allowed to get married, won't that destroy the purpose of marriage?" Her doe-eyes expressing a profound pain. Hey straight people! Don't you see? These two gay fathers are breaking this little girls heart! Do you seriously expect her to share the word 'marriage' with those who can't have children!?! 

 

It was at this time, when the LDS religion came into the public eye and made their stance clear. Estimates claim the churches members donated over 20 million dollars campaigning against gay marriage in California, while the church itself (not the members) claim to have spent 97 thousand. In the end, the proposition passed and gay marriage was once again made illegal. Score one for the Mormons.

Next stop on our tour?

 

Obergefell V. Hodges

In November 2014 a series of appeals court rulings decided that state-level bans on same-sex marriages were unconstitutional. But when the Sixth Circuit appeals court ruled in favor of state-bans on marriage equality, it created a split between the circuits, and led to the case being pushed out of the states hands, and into the hands of the Supreme Court to make a decision that would effect the entire country. The case was resolved on June 26th, 2015, when the Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 vote to federally guarantee same-sex couples the right to get married in America.

You might remember it as the day all of your LGBT friends on facebook changed their profile pics to an equal sign, or rainbow colors. Or, you might remember it as the day all of your religious friends got on facebook to declare the apocalypse and god's judgement was coming for us all.

Score one for LGBT supporters.

But before you head downtown to celebrate, or to the nearest bomb shelter seeking refuge from god's wrath, we have one last stop on this tour.

For The Sake of Your Children, We Don't Want Them 

On Nov. 5th, 2015 the Mormon church received new revelation on how to deal with the 'gay agenda'. Children living with parents in a same-sex relationship could not be baptized until they reached age 18, disavowed the practice of gay relationships, and moved away from their parents. If those conditions were met, they could get baptized. The revelation also stated that those in a same-sex relationship were considered apostates by the church.

And when the dust from that revelation finally settled, those who were in the middle - trying to find a balance between faith and equality, would only find 'Trash'. An angry depiction of what learned helplessness looks like when the victim confronts the object that's been oppressing him.

Was it insulting? Absolutely.
Was it disrespectful? In the most brutal way possible.
Was it merited?

Let me try to answer that last question by asking: How would you feel if the roles were reversed?

Imagine if the LGBT community was actively trying to make it illegal for LDS members to marry other LDS. Now Imagine LGBT members funding millions of dollars to take away that right. Now imagine a video of a Mormon spitting on a prominent LGBT leader. Anyone offended?

Despite what some Mormons might believe, families are important to the LGBT community and their supporters. When your leaders call our families 'counterfeit', and when they actively campaign with words and money to take away LGBT rights, you spit on what I find sacred -


You've not only had the right to disrespect others, you've quite literally had the right to oppress LGBT for decades. If you wanted to be treated better now, you should have had the foresight to respect equality sooner. Cause when the dust settles from the clash between secular humanism and religious zealotry, no one's gonna care that a group that has a history of oppressing others is being mocked by the same people they kept down.

Socialism Created America's Greatest Economy

Addressing the Backlash:

I imagine at reading the title of this Blog post, that the capitalists, conservatives, moderates and Libertarians began foaming at the mouth, incensed that someone would dare question their leaders breadth of knowledge concerning economics. Desperate to click on this blog post, scan through my arguments quickly, and then refute them in the comments section below.

I know, because I used to defend capitalism with the same vigor. When I was a Libertarian, I scoured through Youtube videos, News Boards, and all forms of Social Media to destroy any arguments that questioned the purity of Capitalism. I would quickly identify incorrect arguments against capitalism in articles, and too impatient to finish reading, would jump down to the comment section to berate the author.

So if you fall under one of the political labels I listed above, I can only say - Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't make the rules. I didn't write the history. And I certainly didn't create the facts. I'm just a messenger. I also pride myself on truth, not on bias. So if you can refute these facts, by all means my comment board awaits your source-filled, well researched and documented rebuttal of this blog. You'll never meet someone who changes their views quicker than me in the face of new information.

The Arguments against Socialism: 

I've claimed a lot of different political labels over the course of my life. And when you're a part of their crowd, you begin to learn a certain vocabulary that belongs solely to that group. Having worn many different political masks, I know all the lines, arguments, and tendencies of each group. I know what phrases a republican can say that will make conservatives cheer, and libertarians shake their heads in embarrassment. But everyone's vocabulary tends to overlap the moment the term Socialism is brought into a conversation.

"Capitalism grew the greatest economy in the world!"
"Socialism doesn't work, just look at (insert country currently facing hardships here)"
"Socialism is class warfare!"
"Socialism punishes success"
"It is human nature to be lazy, if you provide no incentive, no one will strive to improve."
"Taxation is theft."
"If you tax businesses higher, they'll move out of America."
"Socialists just want free stuff, and to freeload off of those who work."
"The richest Americans already pay 40% of all tax revenue."
"It's immoral to demand that the wealthy pay more than the poor for the same services. The only moral tax is a flat tax, or a sales tax."

Some of these are legitimate arguments or concerns. Others are downright laughable. This blog post is too short to address each of these issues here, but I will address every one of these in my blog series "Addressing the Arguments Against Socialism" for which this is the first post in that series. If you've heard of other arguments against socialism not listed above, please write them in the comments section, so I can address those as well. In this post I'll be addressing the first argument I listed above. Capitalism did not grow the greatest economy in the World, it didn't even grow the greatest economy in America. Socialism did. So let's get started.

Qualifying a Great Economy

There are probably many factors that contribute to the health of an economy. But there are objectively only a few that economists look at to judge this qualification.

Unemployment - You can't have a strong economy when unemployment is high. Anything below 5% would be considered good, anything above would be bad.

GDP Growth - (A strong economy sees their GDP grow by an avg. of 4-5% a year)
What is GDP? I'll let google define it:
"Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the broadest quantitative measure of a nation's total economic activity. More specifically, GDP represents the monetary value of all goods and services produced within a nation's geographic borders over a specified period of time."

Purchasing Power - How much value is behind our money. If prices go up because of inflation, but wages don't, Americans have less expendable money and less purchasing power because of it.

Strong Middle Class - Perhaps the best line Ayn Rand ever gave the world was the following:
"Upper classes are a nation's past: The middle class is its future."

--

1945-1980 | The Socialist Years

So, now that we've qualified the main identifiers of a great economy, let's look at the policies that were in place when America had it's greatest economy - A 35 year span that I will refer to going forward as The Socialist Years.

FDR was President in 1945, followed by Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK/LBJ, and then Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. These were the presidents during the Socialist Years, and here's the policies that existed during their Socialist presidencies.

Tax Rates: The average marginal tax rate on the richest Americans during these years was 81%. More than twice our tax rate today. (You can find every presidents tax rates here) Fun fact, from 1913 (when income tax was incorporated) the average tax on the richest Americans up until 1980 was 69%. The average capital gains tax was 28%. Since 1980 the average tax for richest Americans has been 40%, and average capital gains has been 21%)

Minimum Wage: FDR started the minimum wage in 1938, which was a part of the 'New Deal' he implemented. During the span of those 35 years, these socialist presidents increased the minimum wage over 1100%. It started off at .25 cents (nearly $4.00 in current dollar value or in other words when you adjust for inflation). And by 1980 the minimum wage had increased to $3.10 ($8.46 when you adjust for inflation, a higher value than our current minimum wage). If you recall, purchasing power was one of the main indicators of a healthy economy. The highest minimum wage (when adjusted for inflation) came under Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency in 1968 with the purchasing power of $10.34. Now if you were to ask a capitalist, they'd tell you that such a high minimum wage would do great damage to the economy, would stunt job growth, and create high levels of unemployment. However, Lyndon Johnson holds the record for president with the lowest unemployment rate in American history. Highest minimum wage in history coupled with lowest unemployment in history. Businesses, it would seem, do just fine when more people have expendable money.

Now - Those were just two of the socialist policies in place during the socialist years, high taxes on the rich, and high minimum wages. But many more socialist programs were created as a part of the New Deal that FDR introduced, including Social Security, Banking regulations, and much more (read about it here).

--

So, now that we've identified what factors go into labeling this timeframe The Socialist Years, let's look at how these policies created the greatest economy in the world.

Unemployment: I mentioned above that Lyndon B. Johnson holds the record for the lowest unemployment rates in American history. Let's see if you can guess who came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th? If you guessed Reagan, the bastion of conservative capitalism, you'd be wrong. Reagan was the 3rd worst president in American history for unemployment. If you guessed the other presidents that were elected during the Socialist Years, you'd be right. Truman, Eisenhower, and Nixon claim the next three spots for presidents with lowest unemployment in American history.

GDP Growth - If you thought unemployment rates make capitalists look bad, and socialists look good - wait till you see this:

Here's the History of GDP growth in America.
1960-1965 | 40% GDP growth - Lyndon B. Johnson
1965-1970 | 45% GDP growth - Lyndon B. Johnson
1970-1975 | 50% GDP growth - Richard Nixon
1975-1980 | 70% GDP growth - Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter
1980-1985 | 50% GDP growth - Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan
1985-1990 | 35% GDP growth - Ronald Reagan, H.W. Bush
1990-1995 | 27% GDP growth - H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton
1995-2000 | 35% GDP growth - Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush
2000-2005 | 25% GDP growth - W. Bush
2005-2010 | 14% GDP growth - W. Bush, Obama
2010-2015 | 21% GDP growth - Obama

From 1960 until 1980 (the second half of the Socialist Years), the average yearly GDP growth was 10.2%. Since 1980, the average yearly GDP growth has been 5.9 - A 45% decrease in growth.

Purchasing Power - I hope I'm not the first person you're hearing this from, but as far as purchasing power, the average American hasn't seen a raise since 1979. (and that's taking into account employer provided health insurance, and employer benefits)
I'll just quote the pew research article word for word:
"In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today."

Middle Class:

The middle class is collapsing - if you guessed that it's collapse started in 1980, the years that deregulation, trickle down economics, and capitalism overthrew FDR's socialist New Deal - you'd be right.

In 1981 Reagan came into office, and that presidency marked the end of the socialist years, as he introduced us to the capitalist theory of trickle down economics, and deregulation.  Since then the rich have gotten richer, unemployment in comparison to the Socialist Years has been abysmal, Purchasing Power has been consistently stagnant, and GDP growth is 55% of what it was. The correlation couldn't be more clear. GDP, Purchasing Power, Employment, and the Middle Class all show a steep decline that started in the 1980's. Every indicator of a healthy economy was stronger under socialist policies.

Conclusion:

Now, I know that correlation doesn't equal causation. And I'm not suggesting that these socialist policies were what created the great economy that existed during the Socialist years. I'm merely pointing out the fact that these socialist programs existed during the greatest economy in American history. This isn't even a claim I made - Capitalists are the ones claiming their policies built the greatest economy in the world. They're the ones who rewrote history, I'm just trying to correct it.

Now, capitalists can play around with these terms, claiming that it wasn't 'pure' socialism, therefore we can't call it socialism. Fair enough, I'll stop calling it socialism when you stop calling it socialism. Stop claiming that Obama is a socialist for increasing the highest tax rate 4 points to 39.6%. Stop calling it socialism when the minimum wage gets raised. And if you want to continue calling it socialism, stop claiming that it's destructive to an economy - facts, history, and reality refute that claim.

In life, the logical response to every situation is to take the default position. I'm not a socialist or a capitalist. I just look at history and the facts, and then conclude what works and what doesn't. And the facts conclude that socialism is benign to an economy at worst, and at best could be beneficial in economic growth. That's the history, and those are the facts.

The Art of Oppression is a blog that relates to how authorities in society oppress ideas, opinions and human beings from being happy, healthy, and intelligent. In this case these authorities used propaganda and rhetoric to give socialism a bad reputation, and the perception that it's destructive to an economy. That rhetoric has prevented people from being open minded about the social and economic philosophy, and stunted an open and honest discussion about its merits and history. This is another device that authorities use to oppress people - they convince you to be close minded, and give you no reason to be. They simply build up pride in your currently held beliefs, then mock those who oppose those beliefs.

Private Prisons

2008 - Present:

Fun fact: I was a libertarian once. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. I knew he'd fail to be elected, but I didn't vote for him because of some idealistic belief. I voted for him to rebel against the political structure in America. In 2008 I had voted for Obama. And while I have no buyers remorse or feel like he betrayed me on purpose, I will admit - I was naive. Hearing the chants of "Yes We Can" bolstered an unprecedented passion in me, and a feeling of community togetherness. I was optimistic that America had hope. And I was certain by electing one man, THIS man, as president, America was going to change for the better.

I underestimated the power and influence that the establishment had. as well as the power and influence that money had on the government, including Obama.

Two years into Obama's presidency, I found myself scratching my head and wondering "Why isn't he doing more to accomplish what he promised to do?" At first I was confused. But when my confusion turned to anger and distrust, I began to resent the government. Although I still felt that Obama was sincere (and still do to this day), I felt like something was holding him back. Preventing him from accomplishing more. (maybe some of you who voted for him felt this same way). It was a rude awakening to realize how corrupt our government was. And in a fit of rage, I decided to blame the government. Not just the officials, governors, senators, leaders etc. but blame the structure itself.

This atmosphere of resentment towards authority couldn't have come at a more perfect time. It was 2011, and the republican party had begun its vetting process to find the candidate they'd use to overthrow Obama's re-election. And when you're mad at government, there's one man and one party whose message will sound like music to your ears - and no - it's not the republicans.

Enter Ron Paul

Gary Johnson & Me

Every word that came out of Ron Paul's mouth was like gospel. No one could articulate the feelings of disappointment I had in government quite like the leader of the revolution of 2012. But it wasn't just his words, it was his demeanor. He was mad. Mad as hell. And so was I. The government worked to help their own, for which it did (and does) very well. And if you're not in their little group - they're remarkably good at being apathetic towards your needs. Caring about you when they need your vote, and caring only about themselves the rest of the time.

Ron Paul was a god send. But when he dropped out of the race, the only option left for my rebellious spirit to voice its complaint against the establishment came in the form of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president. I wanted to send a message to the elites in government, that anti-government sentiment was gaining traction, and to notify them that their days were numbered. I felt like I had found my home - I had always had a strong distrust of authority, and that sentiment could only flourish under the Libertarian Party.

In an online chat Gary Johnson put on in 2012, he expressed his support for something that seemed controversial at the time - Private Prisons. I didn't know what it that was, and was so mad at government, it didn't even cross my mind to investigate what it was. I would vote for Gary, and that was that.

In 2013, the following year, I was given an essay to do in my college English class. I decided to use that as an opportunity to gain an understanding of the Private Prison Industry, and why Johnson chose to support it. I did a thorough research of the topic, following all the guidelines, validating all the sources, and when I finished, I handed in my essay, turned my back, lifted my middle finger at Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and the revolution, and walked away.

The Private Prison Industry:

The Private Prison Industry has existed for a long time in America, but it never had that much of an impact. It wasn't until the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan decided to strengthen the war on drugs, that incarceration began to grow rapidly. As it grew, there was a need to build more prisons.

When the industry started seeing real gains in their profits, it realized it could keep its profits high, if it kept incarceration rates high. So, in the 1990's they lobbied the government to increase the severity of punishments for lawbreakers, and in under 10 years they successfully doubled the rate of incarceration in America, and thereby exploded their profit margins.

But destroying people's lives to make money wasn't enough. Wanting to outdo themselves, they started cutting down on staff, and cleaning services which lead to several huge health code violations. In one such case three men, one of which was in prison for murder, were able to escape from a prison due to a lack of maintenance and security. The Prison was in Arizona. The Private Prison Industry in Arizona might sound familiar to you if you've had the unfortunate pleasure of hearing the name Jan Brewer.

She was in the news a while back for supporting one of the strongest immigration laws in America. The law SB 1070 was so controversial it gained international media attention. One thing you probably didn't hear that much about was how the Private Prison Industry was involved. Two of the staffers working for governor Brewer, had just left an organization known as the CCA (The Corrections Corporation of America). The CCA is an organization that owns and manages private prisons, they also lobby officials in government to introduce stricter laws and harsher penalties. Their business model is simple: Increase prison population to increase profits. One way lobbyists accomplish their goals is by going to officials and promising them jobs in their firms. Kind of a 'if you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours' scenario. The CCA got so cozy with officials that regulate their business, that even Harley Lappin, the Federal Prison Director, was offered a top position in the CCA after leaving his position in government. He was pressured to leave his position in government after being arrested on a DUI charge. You might think that a mistake like that would have ruined his career, but not if you've got friends in the CCA - in that case getting a DUI is just the kind of bright, go-get-em attitude they're looking for to head their sales division.

This revolving door also played a role in Arizona's SB 1070 law in 2010. Two of governor Jan Brewer's staffers came directly from the CCA to government positions that regulated the same industry. And to no one's surprise, they put forth a bill that would increase the CCA's profits.

Mr. Coughlin, one of Brewer's staffers even went so far as to brag about his relationship with the lobbyists after passing the law. He was quoted in an interview as saying "I get shit done."

Americans acceptance of government corruption has gotten to the point where officials can brag about their own role in corruption to our faces.

This is the America you live in, the America you inherited.

And once every few decades those in power create a new device to make money from oppressing the American people. So the next time you hear a candidate say they support the Private Prison Industry - don't walk, don't even run - hide your wife, hide your kids, and hide your husbands...