Britannica defines socialism as a “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.”  It goes on to say, “Everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.”

Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”.  Ok, so right now the government doesn’t technically “own” the production and distribution of goods, but perhaps by directly taking money from the people, it indirectly controls production and distribution.

With recent elections, the fear and concern over socialism spreading in the U.S. has been blasted across television screens.  What a joke.  America has been sliding towards a socialist state for over a century.

It was President Lincoln who first initiated a temporary income tax that lasted ten years to pay for the Civil War.  There were a couple more stabs at establishing an income tax, but it was President Woodrow Wilson who ushered in a permanent income tax that has dogged everyone since.  Thus began the wealth redistribution.

Since that time, the government has been using that wealth distribution to seize control over American lives.  President Franklin Roosevelt thought it would be dandy to take money from Americans and decide how to redistribute it for their retirement, or outright take it if the person died before being eligible to receive it.  While he was at it, he also decided the government should provide housing to everyone.  To ensure food was “divided as fairly as possible”, he started the food program.  President Johnson just expanded the wealth redistribution by feeding people for free and extending government control into education and more housing.  Not believing that was enough, he also managed to get the government to redistribute money for the health care sector and how care would be doled out.

This redistribution of wealth has sucked the life out of the average American’s ability to improve their lives because the government has decided how their money will be spent for equal distribution.  No, it’s not direct government ownership, but it is certainly in charge of how resources are used and distributed.

Housing has just continued to be a target for government control.  Section 8 is intended to provide monetary assistance for housing to low-income and other individuals.  However, now that the subsidy can be used to buy a house for the individual.  There is some thought that property taxes remove full home ownership rights because, if not paid, the government can seize the house. Equity theft of a home by the government would seem to most as illegal, yet it persists as an unresolved issue.  In spite of some tantrums complicating the issue, the government is still trying to control the housing market.

While the government does control Medicare and Medicaid, it also controls how private insurance is administered.  Since the takeover of healthcare, costs have risen dramatically and access is more difficult, both are consequences of socialism.

Rather than a strict definition of socialism, maybe a more generalized definition could include governments taking “control of people’s property—whether by fully nationalizing businesses, mandating what and how much a company must produce, or seizing and distributing their products”.  Certainly, the government continues efforts to dictate housing markets and has seized control of how healthcare is delivered.  It may be that the traditional definition of socialism is being modified for a more covert implementation, and in some cases, intermixed with capitalism.  Then there is also the current slew of public-private partnerships, another socialist sleight of hand.  Why is the White House discussing socialism?

There really isn’t any area now that the government does not have a stranglehold, right down to what we eat.

In return, we have an emerging society that wants government control to expand and supports the idea that socialism is a good model; there is no reason anyone should be surprised.  As money runs out for all of these socialistic programs, the move is also on to take more money from those who are wealthier.  They fail to see that it is the taking of money from others that has caused the problem of needing to take more.  As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

As long as the government continues to have control over these various sectors, the march towards a full socialist state will continue.  It is just being integrated in a way that is more difficult to recognize, but socialism is here.