Socialism advocates for the means or control of production, distribution, and exchange to be owned or regulated by the government; and Progressivism entertains “…the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality…thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems” (Wikipedia).
In essence progressivism is a euphemism for socialism, in a political sense. So, when the left thinks the terms “socialism” is out of favor, they rename it to the much nicer sounding “progressivism” or “social justice” because, who could argue with progress or justice!
Tyrants do not adopt capitalism and limited government (“democracy”) as their preferred economic and social system; because, it lacks the control mechanism to stay in power. But, socialism appeals to those with a limited view of economics and history; because on the surface, it sounds so equal and fair.
We Prefer to Starve than to Act
Lets take the James Town Colony of Virginia (established in 1607) as an example of socialism. Their sponsors in Britain required the colony to operate on a socialist model. They were all to farm and hunt for the collective or for society. Those that had more distributed it to those with less. By the end of 1610, 80 percent of the colony starved to death and if it weren’t for Captain John Smith’s order, “…He who works not, eats not,” the colony would not have survived. In this early colony, everyone expected someone else to produce and they, for several years, starved in the process.
Socialism on the surface sounds fair and right. But it neglects one important element of the human condition. We are more than willing to let somebody else do it for us.
As Jamestown shows us, we’d prefer to starve than to act; and so was the example of the Soviet Union and other socialist and communist countries which eventually collapsed under their own weight. The same can be said Greece or Venezuela, today. Don’t believe me, Google “Greece economic problems” or “Venezuela economic problems socialism” and see for yourself.