Socialism Is A National Security Necessity

Socialism Is A National Security Necessity

Economic Egalitarianism Is An Ultimate Defensive Strategy For Legitimate Security For The Citizenry And Nation

The United States economy has had a traumatic past century. We saw the horrors of the Great Depression, followed by a few decades of apparent prosperity; culminating with the last 50 years of deregulation and increased privatization. Finally bringing the nation, and the world, to its knees in recent years with the Great Recession, and the Post Recession era of austerity and economic decline. The human suffering caused by this haphazard and deceptive economic system has been the basis for world wars over control of "markets", along with countless smaller conflicts of equal or greater levels of death and destruction. All committed in the name of economic "growth", securing "free" markets, and interests of resource control and commodification. It must be recognized that Capitalism, having reached its late stage, is a direct threat to national security; in the exact same way it has been a direct threat to the security of persons. As President Franklin Roosevelt once stated, "True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made".

We as a nation and as a civilization cannot afford to perpetuate such risks that undermine the integrity of our nation. Right now we have corporations that have transcended national boundaries, that act as defacto centers of power. They can utilize their wealth to manipulate and alter the political structures of the US, on all levels of government, to pervert and distort them away from the needs of the citizenry and towards special private interests. The notion of democratizing our economy is the only manner we can logistically ensure that the government and citizenry will not be distorted and manipulated by private interests. Public dominion over the economy is a collectivizing manner that will ensure greater individual security when democratic control directs surplus value back directly into the economy rather than private hands. Nationalizing industries would be the first step towards this economic democratization; especially if the industries nationalized are the ones formed under the auspices of the "Military-Industrial-Complex". Removing private control of the US war machine would ensure that our warrior class is not tricked into pointless wars like the recent wars in the Middle East, or massive wars like the business interests that drove the US into World War One. As Marine General Smedley Butler, one of the highest decorated marines in US history, wrote in his book "War is a Racket":

WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns.

The drive for socialism and economic egalitarianism is not an ideological argument but one of necessity for national and individual security. As we progress into the future, unseen with new events revolving human civilization, technology, etc.; we must avoid past problems and mistakes before they are created/repeated. Late capitalism has proven to consume itself at the expense of governments and citizens alike. It has even proven to be one of the largest force of destruction perpetuating our biosphere degradation and ecological collapse. If we are to ensure the survival of our nation, our civilization, and our species we must get over the dogmatic and fundamentalist perception of socialism being some kind of evil force. It is very apparent that the last century of propaganda disseminating such mental conceptions are based off of falsehoods designed to empower the private forces that benefit from our capitalist system. It is not an ideological conflict, rather a necessity for survival, to dismantle and reconstruct our economy in a democratized and egalitarian manner.

Cover Image Credit: YouTube

Popular Right Now

'As A Woman,' I Don't Need To Fit Your Preconceived Political Assumptions About Women

I refuse to be categorized and I refuse to be defined by others. Yes, I am a woman, but I am so much more.


It is quite possible to say that the United States has never seen such a time of divisiveness, partisanship, and extreme animosity of those on different sides of the political spectrum. Social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are saturated with posts of political opinions and are matched with comments that express not only disagreement but too often, words of hatred. Many who cannot understand others' political beliefs rarely even respect them.

As a female, Republican, college student, I feel I receive the most confusion from others regarding my political opinions. Whenever I post or write something supporting a conservative or expressing my right-leaning beliefs and I see a comment has been left, I almost always know what words their comment will begin with. Or in conversation, if I make my beliefs known and someone begins to respond, I can practically hear the words before they leave their mouth.

"As a woman…"

This initial phrase is often followed by a question, generally surrounding how I could publicly support a Republican candidate or maintain conservative beliefs. "As a woman, how can you support Donald Trump?" or "As a woman, how can you support pro-life policies?" and, my personal favorite, "As a woman, how did you not want Hillary for president?"

Although I understand their sentiment, I cannot respect it. Yes, being a woman is a part of who I am, but it in no way determines who I am. My sex has not and will not adjudicate my goals, my passions, or my work. It will not influence the way in which I think or the way in which I express those thoughts. Further, your mention of my sex as the primary logic for condemning such expressions will not change my adherence to defending what I share. Nor should it.

To conduct your questioning of my politics by inferring that my sex should influence my ideology is not only offensive, it's sexist.

It disregards my other qualifications and renders them worthless. It disregards my work as a student of political science. It disregards my hours of research dedicated to writing about politics. It disregards my creativity as an author and my knowledge of the subjects I choose to discuss. It disregards the fundamental human right I possess to form my own opinion and my Constitutional right to express that opinion freely with others. And most notably, it disregards that I am an individual. An individual capable of forming my own opinions and being brave enough to share those with the world at the risk of receiving backlash and criticism. All I ask is for respect of that bravery and respect for my qualifications.

Words are powerful. They can be used to inspire, unite, and revolutionize. Yet, they can be abused, and too comfortably are. Opening a dialogue of political debate by confining me to my gender restricts the productivity of that debate from the start. Those simple but potent words overlook my identity and label me as a stereotype destined to fit into a mold. They indicate that in our debate, you cannot look past my sex. That you will not be receptive to what I have to say if it doesn't fit into what I should be saying, "as a woman."

That is the issue with politics today. The media and our politicians, those who are meant to encourage and protect democracy, divide us into these stereotypes. We are too often told that because we are female, because we are young adults, because we are a minority, because we are middle-aged males without college degrees, that we are meant to vote and to feel one way, and any other way is misguided. Before a conversation has begun, we are divided against our will. Too many of us fail to inform ourselves of the issues and construct opinions that are entirely our own, unencumbered by what the mainstream tells us we are meant to believe.

We, as a people, have become limited to these classifications. Are we not more than a demographic?

As a student of political science, seeking to enter a workforce dominated by men, yes, I am a woman, but foremost I am a scholar, I am a leader, and I am autonomous. I refuse to be categorized and I refuse to be defined by others. Yes, I am a woman, but I am so much more.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Money IS Speech

Surprise! The left is being dishonest, again...


The use of money in politics, especially in elections, is an issue sure to stir debate. This topic first came to political prominence during the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), in which the Supreme Court boldly upheld a constitutional right allowing corporations and Unions to donate to political campaigns without restriction. This case followed the Buckley v. Valeo (1976) decision, which came to the conclusion that limits on election spending, specifically found in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1976, were unconstitutional. Both decisions, in my opinion, were decided in an ethical and moral manner, despite what fear-mongering conspiracy theorists on the left may want you to believe. For example, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, in a 2011 video titled 'Survey: Massive Lobbyist Power After Citizens United,' is on record lying about the former case, Citizens United.

He first insinuates that lobbyists are now blackmailing United States Senators by threatening to donate to political rivals; though he provides no evidence. He then suggests that this type of blackmail has lead Senators to strike deals with these lobbyists, in the form of a quid pro quo. Not only is his evidence scant, and at times misleading, he is also defaming the characters of seemingly innocent public officials. These types of conspiracies degrade the trust we must possess with our Representatives, which has lead to an unfathomable amount of people calling for an abdication of the first amendment, as it applies to speech in politics. To illustrate, according to a New York Times poll conducted on May 23, 2015, 84% of respondents believed that money has "too much" of a role in political campaigns today.

According to the same survey, 77% of respondents also believed that the amount of money a person can legally donate to a political campaign should be "limited." But, the only possible way to limit the amount of money an individual can use in a political campaign, is to infringe upon the first amendment, which allows speech of all kinds, no matter the amount of speech used or the identity of the speaker. Also, proponents of this idea have yet to define what "limit" means in this context. This, of course, does not matter to the radical anarchist. They are content with letting the government decide whose speech is worth protecting, and whose is not.

This, in my opinion, is a slippery slope not worth traversing down. Therefore, we are left with two options: amending the first amendment, thus setting a dangerous precedent for other amendments in the Bill of Rights, or accepting and allowing speech of all kinds, even speech we disagree with. In my opinion, the latter option is the most ethical. Western Civilization rests upon the idea that everyone can contribute to the national good; yes, even people who have accumulated more money throughout their lives, or those who have been born into wealth.

Therefore, allowing debate, mostly through political advertisements, 'get out the vote' efforts, and general campaign spending, can only strengthen and help educate our society. But, unfortunately, trendy Senators like Bernie Sanders, who has garnered the support of millions of young Americans, has coaxed his supporters into believing the former supposition. This fact alone is not problematic, in fact, disagreement of all sorts is healthy in a Democracy, no matter the ramifications that such policy implementations will be sure to have. It is the process by which he coaxes them that is problematic. Bernie, along with much of the leadership on the left, demonizes those who hold contrary views.

This has created an enormous amount of polarization among politicians, but, more importantly, among ordinary citizens as well. This type of rhetoric spouted all too often by the Democratic leadership, specifically on this controversial issue, has created a cesspool in American politics. If left unchecked, the Democratic leadership will continue to pull our country apart. It is, therefore, our duty as citizens to stand up to the now mainstream radical-left, and reject their plea to uproot our country's values.

Related Content

Facebook Comments