Socialism’s inefficiency well-illustrated in British history

For most of my life, the mere thought that socialism would ever gain ground in a country whose Constitution, conceived by some of the greatest minds this world has ever known, all brought together in order to shed the chains of British rule, was unimaginable.

This was America. The New World. Where our Statute of Liberty invites “Your huddled masses, yearning to be free.”

But socialism has become the word of the day. Or perhaps the Democratic Socialists of America has become the group that has raised more than a few eyebrows.

Across the United States, approximately 35 DSA party members hold some level of elected office. Perhaps this doesn’t seem like many, compared with the total number of elective offices throughout this country, but the thought of any at all should cause concern to those who understand the concept of freedom. It is the saber-rattling party that now stands ready to devour what is left of Democrats, like sharks feasting on their own wounded.

Although conservative voices have used examples of socialism’s inefficiency, such as Venezuela, in the debate against those who are promoting the guarantees of a government under socialistic control, I would think it better in using Britain as a paradigm in order to show that all that glitters doesn’t always turn out to be gold.

During the waning days of World War II, Britain was taking stock of the terrible destruction it had suffered at the hands of the German war machine, in particular the ruins of buildings, homes and resources that had been destroyed during the Blitz, which was the indiscriminate and incessant bombing of British cities. It is estimated that one million buildings, including homes were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. After having made such a great sacrifice, Brits were desperate for necessities.

Clement Atlee, a socialist whose Labour Party had defeated Winston Churchill’s Conservatives, stepped in. He had promised the Brits everything. In bold moves, Atlee nationalized Britain’s coal and steel industry along with the railways, in order to offer the workers a better life. Britain’s socialist government also provided free health care. But as historians have pointed out, Britain paid a terrible price going from a world industrial leader, to where “Industries became inefficient and unprofitable because no competition existed to motivate worker to perform better on the job.” The funds provided for the National Health Service dried up because there would never be enough money to adequately pay for free health care. Ultimately, Britain’s inflation rates skyrocketed and the medical processes and the care it offered became second-rate.

As for the impact left by socialism, Churchill himself had warned, “There is to be one state to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. The state is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, the arch-administrator and ruler, and the arch caucus-boss. Socialism is, in its essence, an attack not only on British enterprise, but upon the right of the ordinary man or woman to breathe freely without having a harsh, clumsy, tyrannical hand clapped across their mouths and nostrils.”

If we do not stand tall for those values that has made America a “shining beacon,” then Churchill’s warning will ring as true for us as it was for Britain.

And unlike astronaut Scott Kelly, I make no apologies.

COMMENTS