Trevor Brookins    
    *Every so often I rerun this column as sort of a mission    statement. It explains the name of my column and my general    perspective.  
    Socialism (as an alternative to pure capitalism) is a much more    sustainable (creates tax payers), morally progressive (less    exploitative), and legally advantageous stance for any    government entity to assume.  
    At its core socialism as an economic system implements a higher    tax structure which generates revenue for the government. This    revenue is generally used to implement social programs to    benefit the public. So why is this superior to economic    conservatism?  
    Firstly the higher tax rates under socialism allow for profits    but not exorbitant profits, so there is less of a motive of    companies to exploit their labor force because the extra    profits will not stay in the pocket of the owner. In this way    socialism is more progressive and better; it is an economic    philosophy that does not incentivize dehumanizing the labor    force.  
    Secondly socialism rejects the ideas of social Darwinism that    economic conservatives normally embrace. Economic conservatives    typically assume that those who succeed in business do so    because of their innate ability. The converse is also true,    that those who are destitute are in that condition because they    have nothing to offer society and need to fend for themselves.    The problem with this assumption is that left to fend for    themselves many of the economically destitute will resort to    crime.  
    Socialists recognize the truth that those who are not assisted    in pursuing success will become blight on society. Ergo, in    creating social and economic programs, socialism is attempting    to minimize future crime and by extension attempting to    minimize the future legal costs of the government in costs for    law enforcement and criminal prosecution. Those same programs    not only attempt to prevent future crime but also create future    productive members of society  future taxpayers in society.  
    Of course there is a limit to the amount of taxes that a    government should implement. But such an acknowledgement is far    from an anti-socialist sentiment. It is instead an admission    that there are degrees to which socialist policies can and    should be implemented. Of course certain infrastructural    services should be performed by the state (fire departments for    instance). But some non-essential programs can and should be    funded by the state as well (sex education and family    planning).  
    Essentially it is the difference between a society devoting    revenue to protecting the haves from the have nots or devoting    revenue to helping the have nots to become haves.  
    Trevor Brookins is a free lance writer in Rockland County,    New York. He is currently working on a book about American    culture during the Cold War. His writing has appeared in    The Journal News. You can reach him at     [emailprotected]    or follow him on Twitter @historictrev.  
The rest is here:
The Socialists Journal: Why Socialism