Defining Socialism in relation to the formation and present state of the United States and the treatment of its land mass. by Gene DeNardo
(liberal)
Monday, January 5, 2009
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, "Let us pray". We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land." Bishop Desmond Tutu
"This land is your land, this land is my land, sure, but the world is run by people who don't listen to music anyway." Bob Dylan
"The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a Socialist argument." Newt Gingrich
Socialism is a word that means many things to many different people. Like most words the definition varies usually dependent on whether one holds the term in a positive, negative or neutral light. Meaning is also cultural and interpreted by worldview.
It is easy to "preach to the choir" but if we are to achieve any progress in discussing issues with citizens of opposing viewpoints, we need to be better at using terms based on their common meaning rather than one based on the speaker's ideology.
If we can utilize the simplest most accepted definition, then we can build our analyses and discussion upon that.
Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state or a collective.
"Means of Production" would include anything used to produce. Land, any resource, any tool or machine or technology, factory, infrastructure, all that makes it possible to produce.
Humans are Labor and we use the tools and resources of production. Labor cannot be owned or considered a means of production in any economic system that even approaches a just method. Slavery is an example of this abuse. Ownership of Labor can exist in any social system and because of that has no unique place in a discussion of Socialism.
Land is the primary resource, the primary means of production. All other resource and material originates in land. With that in mind, the United States, from its inception was founded on the fundamental socialist principle of state ownership of the means of production.
Europeans, as individuals and in groups, large and small, landed on the eastern shores and slowly migrated west, confiscating by force and fraud, land that was utilized for thousands of years by Native Americans. They used "European Discovery Doctrine", which recognized occupation and use as grounds for legal title to legitimize the massacre of those who were occupying and using, the Natives. Further, by these doctrines, Natives were not permitted to sell their land to individuals, only to "Discovering Governments".
The new settlers then fought off, as organized groups of individuals, the European monarchies who threatened to lay claim in similar fashion the land they had claimed for themselves, were successful and proceeded to institutionalize this land acquisition into the United States of America, espousing liberty and justice for all. They had in effect, socialized by force, the land basis of our country.
The Monroe Doctrine rationalized the extension of this socialization of land, by feigning the protection of our neighbors to the south from similar exploitation. We were in no position to protect but it made good spin for the further acquisition of property and initiated our still prevalent "interventionist" policies.
Removing ourselves intellectually but not emotionally from this atrocity, was it possible the land socialization occurred for the good of the whole of the new nation [at the expense of the old], the citizens rather than the benefit of the forming State? To determine this, we need study use, as well as title of the land in question. If the State land acquisition were allowed to lie fallow, it would not qualify as a "means of production" and subsequently would not fall under the definition of Socialism unless it could be argued somehow that the land was being held "out of production" for future use. No such thing has occurred.
Private property rights are considered fundamental to the structure of our society. What is not only a catastrophe but also perfect irony, is that the primary guarantor of this right, the Federal Government, is the also the primary violator of this principle. The private property rights of the citizens of this country, those rights due to common ownership of the federal lands have been ignored, abused, discarded and in reality do not and never have existed. This should not surprise us as we only need to look at the treatment the Native Americans received as the original proprietors of this land. We cannot expect a government that was founded on the abuse of property rights to act any differently upon its own citizens.
As we speak, the federal government has direct title to @650 million acres of the land mass of the United States. This fact bestows us, the citizens of our country, joint ownership to nearly 30% of the property that encompasses our nation. With a population of 300 million, that is 2.16666 acres for every man woman and child within our borders. This is discounting the remaining 70%, most of which at one time or another was held title by the United States.
Many consider the land mass of the United States to have been at its inception, the most abundant natural reserve ever to be contained within the borders of one nation. We have been given more natural wealth than any nation before us and for sure, any nation on earth after.
What has our government, the caretakers, done with this bounty?
Forests have been cleared, timber extracted, parks created and developed, ski resorts created, rivers dammed, lakes turned into reservoirs, waterways diverted, wetlands drained, waters of all types used for waste disposal, mountains leveled for minerals, wells drilled, ore extracted, gas siphoned, coal dug and burnt, fields plowed, animals grazed, fish harvested, native animals slaughtered, plants harvested. All the enterprises that convert natural capital into wealth and then some.
Agencies have been created by the State to oversee and direct this harvesting: The Bureau of Land Management, The United States Forest Service, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, The United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Defense, Army Corp of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and The Tennessee Valley Authority. From this massive harvest on the common property of the citizens, have any of these bureaucracies ever returned a profit to the people? On the contrary, they must draw from the taxpayers pocket year in and year out. Add to that insult, the federal debt exists in an altitude which almost prohibits its measurement.
But, from it tiny, humble beginnings the American government has grown to become the largest beauracracy in history. Is this due to profit from the socialized land base?
It would be unlikely we would have progressed in over two hundred years from an anti-tax revolutionary nation to a high tax beauracracy if this were the case. Would it be necessary for government to draw so much revenue from the people if profits were being skimmed from this bountiful harvest?
And the people themselves, acting as both the source of labor and in some part the capitalist, have they prospered from this harvest. It is not possible to say a resounding no, of course, but there are many considerations.
Americans have an incredibly high standard of living that cannot be argued. But their seemingly unlimited production has proven they have worked as hard as anybody walking the earth. And they have mountains of personal debt. Add to that, a high tax burden which consumes a large portion of their rewards. And a low relative ownership of assets. And we must consider the enslavement of the early African Americans and the countless other immigrants subject to lesser forms of servitude hinged upon their dire economic position, certainly the citizen has more than paid for their share of this socialized harvest. Where then lays the pot of gold?
We need only to follow the money. The majority of natural wealth from our socialized land mass has through the process of extraction and labor been converted into goods which in time are transformed thru capital into assets. The holders of capital and assets are the benefactors of this process and recipients of the bounty of the land.
Entities that existed only in infantile, unrecognizable form during the morning of the Republic, Corporations, now multinational in scope, control the bulk of the wealth, a large percentage of it due to the transfer of the socialized manna of the public land.
Our nation has experienced the largest creation of wealth mankind has known, much of it the responsibility of our rich endowment of land, and out of it has arisen a virgin social system, that of Corporate Socialism or Corpacracy. The recent gigantic public monetary transfers to private corporate coffers are nothing but a variation on this theme. With the treatment of the land beneath our feet in mind, there is nothing about these recent Corporate Socialist transactions that should surprise us.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2009-01-06 03:14:44
mercantilism is another good term, but I do like corporate socialism, I'll probably steal that term from you... great insight into this topic gene, i reread this one a couple times. and i absolutely love the fact that you cant spell bureaucracy... if there was one word that wont embellish your life one little bit by spelling it right, that's a good one. :)
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-01-06 06:11:17
Hi Gene,
Nice article. What an incredibly sad comment on the Nolan Chart readership that this fine article only has two thumbs after a day but an article containing religious sniping against John Travolta has nearly 100.
That pretty much defines the situation we defenders of liberty face in every venue.
Hi Jake, and I thought I used spell check! I didn't use mercantilism for a few reasons, the idea during mercantilism was precious metals and even that is too restrictive for our leaders now. also inter nation trade was one of the main tenets of mercantilism and I don't believe we really have trade. most of what we have is asset transfers between and within corporations with the nations involved only as a byproduct. Bravo on your last series jake!
Hi Jahfre, and you know, I always liked John! He always has a positive attitude! but yes, we are all in a tough situation.
very timely article. The history of socialism haven't finished, as many have said. And it is simple to understand. We belive in a world without explorations and discriminations...
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
