Defining Socialism… and Our Discussions

I have been intrigued a bit to watch the debates unfold between several folks from the left and several folks from the “no government” perspective. What intrigues me is the opportunity to see things from the perspective of someone who believes that socialism is the way to go. It isn’t just an argument that health care, or a single issue, should be one way, but an actual claim that what we have doesn’t work so they are willing to give socialism a shot because they think it would be better for the American people. For those that believe differently, which is a large portion of the readership, I don’t think it is fair to simply say “socialism is bad”, so I think some discussion should follow as to what flaws have led people to that conclusion. Allow me to be clear that I believe that nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that socialism is a good way forward. Socialism is NOT a good idea, and I am going to discuss why….

And I am also going to attempt (remember I said attempt, not that I would be successful) to help frame the discussion in a way that may perhaps allow the parties involved to actually discuss the situation without both sides typing the same question over and over. I know this article is long, but to be honest…. I think it is worth the extra five minutes of reading in order to gain the knowledge. Of course I may be biased towards the author…

Socialism. A dirty word in many parts of America. Not quite as dirty as Communism, but close. So what exactly constitutes socialism or communism? They are similar in many ways, with some key differences. We’ll save communism for another day. Socialism is not a political system, it’s an economic system. Socialism comes down to government control of the means of production and the allocation of resources. According to Wikipedia: Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.

So let’s go a step further and define one of the other words there that may cause trouble: “an egalitarian method of compensation”. Egalitarianism is defined either as a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights, or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people. Egalitarianism asserts that all people are of equal value and should be treated the same irrespective of their birth. Our forefathers believed in egalitarianism, but only to an extent. All men were born with inalienable rights. Unless of course, those men were black. So while espousing a form of egalitarianism, they fell flat on their face in practice.

Calm down folks... Just a little Obama Socialist Fun

Let’s apply those terms in the definition of socialism to reality here so everyone is clear. Socialism, in our society, constitutes state ownership and/or worker ownership of the means of production. This means that the state, essentially, sets the terms of how things are produced. This doesn’t mean just regulations and controls, but going right down to what is produced and how much of it will be produced. General Motors and the state they are in is a direct example of socialism. The government has taken over the right to control how the company is run, what types of cars will be produced, what their specifications will be, and the quantity that will be produced. State run industry. GM fits the bill right now.

The health care industry is rapidly being forced towards socialism under the “reforms” we are seeing pushed in today’s public debates, as well as through some provisions already passed through “stealth legislation”, inserting things into other bills having nothing to do with health care sneaking it under the noses of the people. While claiming “insurance reform”, the government is actually moving towards being able to control the pricing, availability, services offered, and medical treatment courses. Government control of the health care industry. “Obamacare” falls nicely under the realm of socialism. And like any big thing the government wants to get passed, you can be sure that they sell you one bill of goods that those on the left think sound good, but you can bet they won’t think it is so hot once government has the control and no longer needs the “will of the people” to do what they want.

Socialism does not take the step that communism takes in eliminating the classes of people. Under communism, essentially, there are no classes of people. Everyone earns the same no matter if they are a doctor or a garbage collector. Socialism does not eliminate classes. And under socialism, people are still able to earn based on their contribution to society. Doctors make more than garbage collectors.

It is an important side note that those who espouse the tenets of socialism, in general, are not “bad people” who are looking to do harm to society. The problem is that things such as McCarthyism and the cold war have rendered the American mindset, for many, to believe that those who would attempt to move towards socialism are doing so with bad intention or lack of morals. That is not the case, and we should take care to not begin from that premise. Karl Marx was not a bad person. He wanted to create a better society, and truly believed that communism in its purest form would bring about the true freedom for the individual. His theory was fatally flawed, and his methods were evil, but his intentions were not evil. Che Guerva was not much different in that he believed in a better society. And Greatergoodcs wants to find a better way forward, not to destroy everything. My personal belief is that his thinking is flawed, as I am sure he believes mine is flawed. But I don’t think him “evil”. I think his intentions are good, just not his method. Remember that as you discuss and debate this subject.

So why do I think socialism is such a bad idea? There are lots of answers to that question. I will begin with some of the standard answers to that question.

Ludwig Von Mises

Socialism is inefficient in the market in the grandest way. It makes economic calculation impossible. Economist Ludwig Von Mises wrote extensively on the economic disaster that socialism entails. For those wanting to truly understand why socialism is bad, I highly suggest that you read Mises’ work entitled “Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis”. I would bet my car payment that BF has this book on his shelf and has read it in its entirety. Mises set out to dispute the economics of socialism and instead wrote a piece of work that destroyed the entire premise of socialism completely. With a central government owning the means of production and distribution there can be no competition, profits, losses, market prices, or market, for that matter. However, profits, losses, and prices serve to guide scarce resources to their most highly valued means.

What this really means is that the market forces that operate naturally, that almost no one can dispute the power of, are unnaturally thrown off balance the second that government enters the equation. Supply and demand are the forces that are taught at even the most basic level of economics coursework. We all know they are the forces that naturally control the market, whether we like it or not. Yet even after learning this fact of the economic world, we subscribe to the ideal that government control, regulations, intervention, and oversight can do a better job than the natural forces that existed long before government had the ability to pervert the system.

I understand the fact that a truly free market is a scary proposition for people. It is scary for me too. And I am not sure how it can work or not work. The problem is the perversion of humans. There are inherently that 10% who are not moral and will work to take advantage of their fellow man. And there is great debate on how to “control” those bad seeds. But I submit to you that no amount of government control will ever do so. And that is because while the perverted humans make up 10% of the population, they make up a far higher percentage of the politicians. Asking the biggest group of perverted humans to control the smaller group of perverted humans that put that bigger group in place is like asking the factory worker to control the factory owner. Remember that analogy, because that is what you advocate when you say you want government to control the wealthy. Failing to realize and remember that is fatal.

But more than that, socialism is a morally bankrupt system. It operates on the premise that it is allowable to take from someone the fruits of their labor. There is no other way to say that. It is that blunt. Socialism and the redistribution of income that it encompasses is theft at a grand scale. It is the belief that you have the right to take from the person that produces wealth, the person who earns wealth, and give that wealth to someone else who did not produce it or earn it. At its very core, socialism is evil for that reason. Theft in the name of good is still theft. And even those on the left advocating this system know in their hearts that this is so.

Frederic Bastiat had perhaps the clearest statement to this end: “It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder…. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” Remember that Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was still a criminal.

Another economist, Walter Williams goes even further in condemning the theft involved in socialism, and even in our current welfare system: “Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That’s why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there’s a majority consensus….. For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment “Thou shalt not steal”, I’m sure He didn’t mean thou shalt not steal unless there’s a majority vote. And, I’m sure that if you asked God if it’s okay just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.”

Do you really need any other proof that socialism is bad than to know it was the tool of choice for these three?

Property rights are an essential part of liberty and freedom, my friends. There is no way around that. A man’s right to live on the results of his own effort and to aspire as high as his effort is willing to take him is the essence of what constitutes “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. I will never, ever, so long as I live, understand the mentality of someone who believes that they have the right to take from me what is mine, what I have earned with the sweat of my brow. I know there are those that will say the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy. To them I say a resounding “bulldookey”. The “system” is rigged in favor of those that will work the hardest, put forth the most effort, and take the most risk. That isn’t corrupt or morally wrong, that is nature at its finest. The Lion that learns to hunt the best is the one that sits down to a feast of antelope…. that is until the Hyenas come along and decide that they have a right to take what they did not earn.

Those with the most ability and putting forth the most effort earning the most fruits is not greed, although I know some feel that it is. It wasn’t greed that drove Bill Gates to do what he did. He had a vision for everyone having personal computers. Was he always moral, I am not the judge of that. But I know he is giving a VAST majority of his wealth to charity upon his death, and that says something good about his character. Most business, despite claims otherwise, is not driven by greed. Most business is driven by the desire to be the best, by competition, and by the desire to see how much one can accomplish with the ability he is given. That is not greed. Greed is the belief that you are entitled to something that you did not earn, no matter why it is that you feel entitled.

Relax... Just a little more fun. No more than I would poke at GW

Are there silver spoon kids, born into wealth and, therefore, given some advantage over someone born into poverty? You bet. They are born that way because their genetic line worked for it in most cases. I have every right to work hard, earn money, and pass it on to my children, because I EARNED IT. You did not, so you have no right to it. Again, taking of someone’s property is theft, no matter what flawed reasoning you attempt to use to justify it. Regardless, those fitting that description (silver spoon kids coming from a family line that didn’t earn that money) are far and few between. And those that are born to wealth, yet who do not learn to earn and produce, will surely squander it and ensure that their descendants have a tin spoon instead.

I have a suggestion for those who prescribe to this flawed position. If you don’t like economic inequality passing from one generation to another UNJUSTLY (meaning that those who gain wealth from history rather than hard work), then focus on finding the morally sound method of dealing with that situation. It is not morally sound to steal from them what is theirs. It is not morally sound to set up barriers to success. It is not morally sound to demand that they sacrifice for what you believe that they should sacrifice for. These are morally flawed positions, no matter the reasoning you attempt to use. Instead remove the one barrier that has been erected that is also morally corrupt. That barrier is the prop that allows them to act without the ability to fail. Remove the mechanisms that falsely prop up failing decisions in the business world. THAT is the only morally sound path to take. Once that is done, those who do not deserve to succeed will fail.

One more quote that I want to add here. I found this writing on a discussion board and despite my best efforts, I cannot find out who the author is. It was posted as “anonymous” (nearly every entry on this particular board was anonymous). But I thought the author did a good job of discussing the subject (highlights mine):

The question always should be which style of government sacrifices the least of its people’s individual powers to protect those powers and privileges with the least oppressive way.

Giving over power of survival against one’s will to a supreme body of decision makers has yet to be proved any more beneficial to growth in morality or social desires than a desire to instill personal gain and reward as the prize of good effort. Some systems reflect the human desire to succeed better than others and the envy of some becomes their jealousy to slander reality against those better equipped to gain at that given time.

Governments set up to steal value, repress achievement and imply conformity have not shown any moral superiority to influence positive social awareness. Whether it be capitalism, socialism or communism, the power of the individual to seek his own destiny within the framework of a social conscience should be supported by the government, not dictated or coerced by that government.

All systems have a flaw in that humans will incorporate their jealousy, power and superiority upon each other and the one that allows failure and good deeds to be freely attained by personal merit of all classes reflects reality best.

Class struggle is no more the enemy of mankind than retardation of intellect is a measure of someone’s heart. I only wish that those who think governmental style protects some sort of moral equation would please go back into their minds and discover where morality is based and where does it get its strength.

I am not a believer that morality is attained by forced compliance to the will of the state, nor is it preserved by a systematic oppression of the individual characteristics of those that wish to advance more than another.

The risk of dominance by coercion or dominance by effort will always be a part of any human government. The question should always be which system allows failure and success to everyone with some amount of reality and personal set value so that the powerful can risk failure as much as the peasantry. Avenues that destroy that reality by preserving failed enterprise or individuals to their lost causes should be dissuaded from government support.

So there you have it, my take on socialism. At least as much as I intend to offer this evening. So that should begin to offer some sort of framework to the discussions that I have seen happening over the last couple of days. But I want to go a step further and offer some advice to all parties. Might I suggest a little more explanation when setting forth your questions. BlackFlag has a very precise method to his madness. So going down his path is actually beneficial in a lot of ways. But, BF, you might do well to better explain why you are ignoring some questions while asking others that seemingly don’t enter into the equation. After some exhausting debates with you myself, I can see where you are going, so I see the value in the journey even when I completely disagree with you. At the same time, you might also at least partially answer a question that I saw asked at least ten different times by GG.

Greatergoodcs. I know that BF is exhausting. Believe me when I say that I don’t worship him. Perhaps some here do, but not in the way you think. Those who seem to worship him have actually gone through these debates with him before and found a little bit of their core that aligns with his thoughts, so they are not worshipping him, they are actually trying to help the conversation along because they see you suffering the same frustration with him that they once did. Sometimes I think BF is crazy. For example, it is well documented that I completely disagree with him on the idea of “no government”. We argue incessantly, but I believe we each respect the fact that we are both honest and attempting to find a better way forward. I can point to a night where he, Just A Citizen, and myself sat in a three way instant message chat for 4 hours debating a simple definition, with all three of us having different opinions.

But I promise you this: If you decide to play along with his game, you will learn something about your own position, whether good or bad. He can seem harsh, blunt, and annoying at times. But I promise you he has a good heart and he does his level best to use reason and logic every time, even when it damages his own previous position (in which case he will amend his previous position). I also know debating the theoretical sometimes seems silly when discussing the real world, but what he does with the theoretical allows for the formation or realization of what your core belief really is, which is essential in determining a path forward that eliminates moral contradiction.

And I remind everyone of my rules here. You all know my one rule: RESPECT. Some of the discussions have gotten a little testy and I saw a bit of a slip in some cases. We all share far more in common than what separates us. I know it becomes necessary for me to remind everyone of that every now and then. We will get nowhere by treating differing opinions badly. The key to finding the way forward is respectful discussion of differing ideals and positions. 304 million of us have to find a way to get along. Arguing won’t do that. Discussion with respect will solve everything so long as we rely on logic and reason to guide us.