Tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Socialism: means of production as property of the people.

I don't see a contradiction.

Each of the 50 states has individually enacted so many policies and regulations surrounding the means of production being NOT the property of the people. To unwind all of these laws and systems in place, not only will the nation face the most unbecoming administrative challenge ever undertaken by a modern nation; it would also require an outright de-ratification of the Constitution as a whole.

There is absolutely zero compatibility between Socialism and the US Constitution. Say what you will about either - they do not work together. Come back to this completely unrealistic idea in 100 years where there's a chance that social calamity has caused enough destruction that we finally let go of our founding documents. I think the likelihood of such an outcome is extremely unrealistic, though.

There's also inherent tyranny-of-structurelessness issues that will arise from abolition of private property whereby certain members of an outwardly democratic cooperative will have more influence and significance than others, but whose de facto "ownership" will have no de jure significance, thus being easily denied and also inefficient since the law will not clearly delineate property lines when everything is meant to be "common".

So it's not the tenth amendment that conflicts with socialism? It's a variety of other laws and policies.

Yet you say that "there is absolutely zero compatibility between Socialism and the US Constitution", so perhaps you're thinking of one of the other amendments or some such? Perhaps something involving the protections on property.

Socialism could still take root among the American populace, even if it's incompatible with the constitution.

I noticed the quotes around "socialism", but to be clear - there is nothing in the US constitution that stops democratic socialism (which in itself is way beyond where "socialism" is used as a slur). I guess my point is - using the term socialism without defining it as social democracy or some other branch of socialism is confusing.

> If States get the authority to legislate on all matters not explicitly defined in the Constitution, then there is no way for socialism to take hold in the US.

Socialism doesn't require that the decisive nexus of power be the national government. Socialism as a model could still take root with the main nexus of public action being at the State level.

the 16th amendment creates the apportioned requirement at the federal level.

Also the expansion of the commerce clause "the switch in time that saved 9" also contributed when used in concert with the 16th amendment see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I apologize for how rude this is going to sound, but if you think that the 16th amendment allows the government to bequeath to the American people the means to production then you're being incredibly naive.

Even _if_ the courts upheld that point of view, you must keep in mind the incredibly contentious situation that surrounds the ratification and the enforcement of the 16th amendment and its various precedents set. Using such a weak and explosive justification for the implementation of socialism in the US will lead to the most intense political battle ever witnessed by citizens of our declining nation.

Socialism could be defined on many different levels. Given that money is supposed to be a store of value, and that it has a large affect on human choices, I contend that the progressive nature of the income tax rates as they are applied at the federal level is some form of Socialism. Look at the Earned Income Credit, it pays people money back above and beyond anything they have paid in. This is a form a wealth re-distribution.

Also see how Bernie Sanders plans to use the income tax in his plan to raise max rates to 73% to accomplish wealth redistribution.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11066036

What? Why does that matter?

> because you cannot have socialism if wealth is not distributed in an apportioned manner

States are fully capable of re-distributing wealth.

Socialism never took root exactly because of what Steinbeck alludes to. Cultural incompatibility.