The deterioration of economic literacy has caused big problem in the United States today.

The fact that so many of my peers in the university system think it’s great that we have a “democratic socialist” from Vermont in the senate is a key indicator of this fact.

What I’ve noticed is that when people claim that socialism and/or communism is good they start with the idea that they’re “fair.” I think that’s a reprehensible statement to make.

What makes the theft of other people’s hard earned goods or resources “fair?”

Is it fair just because you want it?

Many also point to the “fact” that socialist and communist countries have lower income inequality. This may be to a narrow extent true, but for reasons that may not be convenient.

Take a basic socialist country, Venezuela.

Venezuela has one of the lowest levels of income inequality in the entire region, according to Worldbank. Yet, poverty is so awful there that Venezuelans are starving and there are clear signs of a malnutrition crisis, according to UNICEF.

As Ben Shapiro has pointed out based on Worldbank statistics, 9 out of 10 Americans live above the WORLD’s median income. Do I think that a little less income inequality in the U.S. would be beneficial? Perhaps, but that definitely isn’t a big issue here.

Finally, let us consider how odd it is that income inequality has become a giant issue over the last several years. On the face of it, it shouldn’t be nearly as big of a deal as relative poverty.

According to Newsweek, Bernie Sanders’ June 2017 financials place him “firmly in the top 1% nationally,” and yet he has tremendous amounts of income inequality with someone like Bill Gates. Should we redistribute Bill Gates’ income to Bernie Sanders, who’s easily a millionaire?

Of course not.

Economics is much more complex than meets the eye.

Therefore, before you decide to rant about income inequality in the United States, take the time to consider other economic facts. It would make you more persuasive and grant you increased credibility.

(1) comment

You ask "What makes the theft of other people’s hard earned goods or resources “fair?”". I would encourage you to read more socialist literature. For this is a commonly used argument against capitalism, which steals the labour from workers by exploitation and not fully paying these workers, which is the only way to gain profit. If the workers were fully paid according to the 'amount' of labour they did, the owners of businesses would make no profit. I give you a quote from the beginning of Kropotkin's 'The Conquest of Bread':

"We, in civilised societies, are rich. Why then are the many poor ... in spite of the powerful means of production, which could ensure comfort to all in return for a few hours of daily toil?
The Socialists have said it ... it is because all that is necessary for production - the land, the mines, the highways, machinery, food, shelter, education, knowledge - all have been seized by the few ... it is because, taking advantage of alleged rights acquired in the past, these few appropriate today two-thirds of the products of human labour, and then squander them in the most stupid and shameful way. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞, 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡, 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧'𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞. It is because these few prevent the remainder of men from producing the things they need, and force them to produce, not the necessaries of life for all, but whatever offers the greatest profits to the monopolists."

It's an excellent book; I recommend that you read it. This passage says that people are forced to work, and not paid enough for it: the foundation of capitalism is this - profit.

Your point is wrong. May I add that many people who are rich in a capitalist society are so because they inherited a business or large sum of money, or they know people in such a position who helped them, meaning that few people actually worked "hard" for their "goods or resources". This occurs because of the cronyism and nepotism inherent in our society. It is in no way "fair" to allow these people who have not worked for their privileges to have authority and more resources over others who may have worked harder. Surely it is more fair to disallow such inheritance and give everyone enough that they can live freely, and then work without a worry that they will not have enough food for the night? Everyone is a person; just because they were born to someone in particular should not give them extra privileges; everyone should have the right to sufficient food and water and housing etc., what Kropotkin calls 'the necessaries of life'.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.