Urbanization, Socialist Style


The majority of background information for this article can be found here and here.  Applicable goals can be found by reading the Communist Manifesto, but to keep this article simple, this definition of socialism will suffice.

noun \?s?-sh?-?li-z?m\

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The catalyst of proposed action (i.e. sustainable development) began with the UNCED meetings (called the “Earth Summit”) that took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.  Ratification of the UNCED initiatives (Commission on Sustainable Development) in the U.S. occurred during June of 1993 (against the will of Congress) at the hands of former-President Bill Clinton via Executive Order 12852.

Since that time, how has the initiative on sustainable development progressed?  IMO, that is difficult to judge.  The long-term outcomes are designed to fall within the goals of socialism as listed above.  Environmental causes are simply being used as a means to an end in providing a cloak by which those ultimate goals are to be concealed until such time as those goals are accomplished.  The reason for concealment is best stated here:

“The UN Millennium Papers caution activists not to mention the UN Agenda because of potential American backlash, and instruct, “So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.”

The existence of that cloak serves the purpose of not only misleading and/or deceiving people but also to cloud the degree of progression on this initiative.  But there is evidence to indicate that sustainable development initiatives have progressed much farther than we might realize simply by the fact that there are now 600 cities across the US directly involved in the UN’s International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).  (And I hope the reader will take the time to follow the link provided above to determine if their city is a member of this organization).

So, how does this sustainability initiative work in the context of practical application?  The best way to describe it is through the following 4-minute video below.  The person speaking is Rep. Neal (D) of Richland County, S.C.  He is referencing a piece of centralized planning legislation (i.e. “smart growth” legislation) called “Vision 20/20”.  The video was made in 2003, at which point in time the legislation stalled, but the legislation did pass into law in the state of SC in 2009, which allows the content to remain fairly current.


The 4-minute video you just watched is an excerpt from this 2-hour video.

The rest of this article involves taking a step outside the proverbial box of being a conservative and looking at a particular concept with socialistic goals in mind in order to see the potential to progress towards socialism that someone who prefers socialism might see.  Here are few things that I can visualize:

  1. Some pieces of property might currently be zoned industrial, light-industrial, commercial, etc.  This current zoning status increases the value of that property, contributing to the financial assets of the owner.
  2. Property outside urban boundaries would be defined as “preserved space” by the government.  This property could be restricted in access to necessities, such as water and/or sewer.  Regardless of what current zoning status might be, if that property lies outside defined urban boundaries, the property could be rendered of little use for development purposes, decreasing the value of the property, taking financial assets away from the individual.  (It’s not exactly confiscation of personal property, but it is confiscating wealth).
  3. Demand for property within urban boundaries would increase.  Government would have it within their means to control distribution and usage of that property, thereby controlling and redistributing wealth.
  4. Private sector (capitalistic) growth and development would be limited by the controls that government places on land usage within urban boundaries.  (The question is to what extent would this be limited?  Having Internet access and being able to do business via the Internet might help us out a lot to prevent stagnation in private sector enterprise…if we can keep the hands of socialism from taking even this option away from us).
  5. High demand for property within urban boundaries would provide the opportunity for government to justify mandated usage of public transportation within those boundaries and between villages.  (Just like they have in Europe, with lots and lots of Unions)
  6. Government can exercise discretionary wisdom in allowing business growth and development outside urban boundaries while charging a premium fee for this opportunity to the ‘sacrifice of preserved space’.  (In other words, you’ll get taxed through the roof for access to those necessities).
  7. By implementation of “diversity” standards, both in regards to business and residential access to property within urban boundaries, government can gain greater control over the voting outcomes of a specific district.

These are just a few of the things that could be accomplished, moving forward in the direction of establishing socialistic policies within our society.  It all moves in the direction of greater governmental control, restriction and elimination of freedom, redistributing the wealth, etc.

Okay, enough of the “dark side” for me for the time being.  Back to the “light” where freedom and liberty still exists.

For right now, the logistics and finances of getting these villages up and running have proven to be an obstacle, which I’m grateful for.  It is in the process, however, yet we rarely ever hear any candidates talking about how these kinds of initiatives present a threat to the American Dream, freedom, or liberty.  They just go on being politicians, day in and day out, following the path of what is usually the most politically expedient, either for themselves or for their party.

With over 14 trillion dollars in debt and unemployment staying high, we really need more of a pro-business approach coming from Washington, D.C.  Not just small government, limited spending or reduced taxes, but PRO-business.

So, who will stand in our behalf?  Is there a candidate out there willing to take on some of these kinds of issues, to point out the dangers of these initiatives, to champion the American Dream?

Time will tell, I guess.


0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 8, 2011 10:32 pm

Well, LH, we would certainly hope so. Unfortunately, those candidates who might otherwise have the time to educate themselves on things you discuss here are busy brushing up on foreign policy. In the meantime, there is at least one potential candidate who, rather than pointing out the dangers of these initiatives, seems to be adhering to them. The Kernan-Sheppard Commission on Local Government Reform produced a plan for “moving Indiana into the 21st Century”. It was instigated and championed by Mitchell B. Daniels. It was researched, assembled and produced by the Indiana University Center for……………………………Urban Affairs and………………the………………………….Environment. It takes away… Read more »

May 9, 2011 5:05 pm

Now that I have a grip on the urbanization urgency in prior comments, LH. I understand and agree. I doubt it’s an out-front priority with the Left for now, but eventually, it will be a major raison d’etre, a la, Stalin.