Week 43: Socialism
As an individual, who was raised during the waning years of
the Cold War – a war between the philosophies of individualism and
collectivism, between capitalism and socialism, I am regularly astonished by
the growing embrace of the latter over the former. My astonishment was renewed the
other evening while reading Of Plimoth Plantation, written from 1630 to
1651 by William Bradford. The Plymouth colony was founded, in part, on the
principles of socialism, and more than 350 years later, one only need observe
our current political and electoral processes to see that socialist tendencies
are unabashedly alive and well.
But before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s briefly define
socialism. Simply put, socialism includes an economic system in which the means
of production are owned collectively, such as by the state and/or by the
workers. It includes political and social structures that plan the distribution
of the ends of production in a centralized manner. Again, this is a basic
definition. In the economic, political and social spheres of socialism, there
are many different forms and combinations.
With regard to the means of production, there are numerous
proposals out there discussing the need to break up monopolies, to require
worker representation on boards of directors, to mandate greater government
intervention into how businesses are run through the application of more and
more federal regulations.
With regard to the benefits of production, there are
numerous proposals out there, often funded through increases in direct and
indirect taxes on all Americans, that would eliminate private health insurance
and require all Americans to be on some form of government insurance – or a mix
of public insurance supplemented by private insurance; proposals that would
outlaw private education, requiring all students to attend public schools;
proposals that would provide a basic income to all citizens. The list goes on
and on.
What these proposals have in common is the sacrifice of
individual objectives and initiative at the altar of the collective good. A
problem with such proposals is that the collective good is not defined by the
people but by the ruling class in Washington, D.C. These proposals require that
one individual works for the good of another, as opposed to himself or herself.
No animal, including the human animal, is wired this way. Self-preservation is
the most basic of instincts. After that is the family unit as the most basic of
social contracts. After that are local communities, and so on until you get to
the level of the global community.
This is not to say that there is no value or import in the
global community. Indeed, there is. Take, for example, Leonard Read’s essay “I,
Pencil.” (https://youtu.be/U3W2v7LN-88)
Read describes the global cooperation necessary to make something as simple as
a pencil. He describes the benefits to people around the world that derive from
their collaboration to make the pencil – their voluntary collaboration. It is
Adam Smith’s invisible hand at work in a very real way. Take, as another
example, the sharing of knowledge and information among the peoples of the
world, from the scholarly work of the ancient Greeks and Persians that still
influence our thinking today to the instantaneous transmittal of data across
the internet.
To be sure, global relationships have important roles in our
lives. Those examples and myriad others demonstrate success when they begin
with individuals pursuing their own self-interest, not as a directive from some
central authority. When centralized power is exerted to focus humanity on the
global social contract, working backwards – against the nature of the
individual, unfavorable results occur.
Returning to the 17th century, Plymouth was
founded on the premise that private ownership would not be allowed, that each
individual colonist would work for the good of all other colonists, and that goods
and services of each individual’s labor would be planned and distributed
centrally. This approach failed, resulting in sloth, starvation and crime. The
colonists did not want to labor for the benefit of others at their own expense.
There was no personal investment in success. Animosity grew as the industrious
were required to pick up the slack for the lazy and received no benefit for the
extra initiative.
The colony did not flourish until the means of production
were placed in the private control of the individual colonists. Once this
occurred, production increased to the point that all in the colony were
satisfied and they actually became exporters of goods.
In the nearly
four centuries that have passed since the time of William Bradford and the
Plymouth colonists, think about the times in which socialism has been employed
as a mechanism for economic, political and/or social organization. One is
hard-pressed to find a single example in which the system has been sustained
without repression of the individual. Look at the concentration camps of Nazi
Germany, the gulags of the Soviet Union, the forced labor camps of North Korea
and China, and the political prisons of Cuba. People often point to the
Scandinavian countries as examples where socialism works. However, as Nima
Sanandaji points out in her book, Scandinavian Unexceptionalism, the
success of Nordic economies, which is touted by the proponents of socialism,
was realized prior to the great expansion of the welfare state in those
nations. Since that time, key economic indicators, such as economic growth
rates and national wealth, have been on the decline.
Despite the
repeated failures of socialist policies, each new socialist believes that
failure has been caused by errors in implementing socialism, that there is
nothing fundamentally wrong with socialism itself. Yet, as Bradford points out,
the fundamental flaw with socialism is that it is antithetical to the nature of
humankind. Marcus Aurelius, the last of Rome’s Five Good Emperors and the last
ruler of the period known as Pax Romana, reminds us over and over again in his Meditations
of the importance of living life in accordance with nature. History
demonstrates that the only periods of great advancement and success – for
people at all levels of the socio-economic spectrum – have been during periods
of limited intervention into the lives of individuals, which is to say during
periods of the greatest individual freedom in terms of economic and social
activity. This is true of the growth of the “middle class” in the United
States, of the economic success of Nordic countries, which enabled them financially
to embark on their socialist experiment, to name just a couple examples.
So, given the
examples of history, which show that socialism stifles humanity and freedom
advances humanity, why do politicians propose more of the former? It goes back
to what we’ve discussed before: power! With freedom and liberty, the political
class must relinquish control over the people, something that a corrupt mind is
seldom wont to do. Recall the words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. To this point, we may explore the notion of
term limits in a future blog.
It cannot be
denied that socialism, by definition, requires that individuals relinquish some
level of control over their own lives, in terms of both their productivity and
their consumption, to a third party. That is to say, in a free system, party A
agrees to interact with party B. Their interaction is voluntary and each party
presumes the interaction will be to his or her benefit. In socialist
arrangements, party C sets parameters for the interaction between parties A and
B. As party C’s power increases, the equation expands: party C decides what
parties A and B must do for the benefit of party D. To illustrate this point
more clearly, let us choose one candidate and one issue, so-called “free”
education.
In a free market,
I choose to pay a college to attend school and to get a degree. I received a
federal student loan to go to graduate school, so the government entered that
arrangement: the government paid the college so that I could go to school and
get a degree, with the commitment on my part that I would pay the government
back, with interest, for the loan. Under the “free” education policies of
Warren and Sanders, higher education would be provided at no direct charge to
students and students and graduates who have student loan debt would have that
debt “forgiven.” This arrangement is one in which the government requires you
and me to do something (i.e., pay taxes to cover the cost of education) for
someone else. You and I will be required to pay, but we will have no input into
the cost-benefit analysis of whether our money will be well spent.
Look at the
government’s track record in terms of education (Week 49 posting), and it
leaves one wondering (at least it leaves me wondering) why in the world would
we entrust such important things – like education and healthcare – to those in
government. With very few exceptions, they are little more than a collection of
power-hungry fools, and their power depends on keeping us (or at least the
right numbers of us) hungry, homeless, uneducated, ill and poor. Compare that
to a free and capitalist system, in which the better off each individual is,
the better off society is. Healthier, happier, educated individuals enrich the
free exchange experience and the innovation necessary to continue the
improvement of the human experience.
As you consider
your vote this coming November, ask yourself which candidate seeks to control
you or to free you. Ask yourself if the candidate you’re considering is a
person to whom you would entrust your individual well-being. Is he or she
better suited to direct your life than you are? And deeply explore if their
policies enrich each individual’s life or if it sacrifices the freedom and
liberty of one group for the benefit of another group. I contend that we cannot
be equal and free if laws and the social contract treats one group differently
from another, and that is fundamentally how socialist systems are designed, as
opposed to how they are marketed.
Keeping in mind
that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, let us
not forget the repeated failures of socialism and the human misery it has
created.
Our republic - true and virtuous
Who is Publius?
- Publius
- Publius is the pseudonym used by the writers of The Federalist Papers and was a name taken from Publius Valerius Publicola, who helped found the Roman republic. I believe Publius is any person, who wants to explore the principles of individual Liberty and fundamental, natural human rights. More than this, Publius is any person, weary of tyranny, who wants to take action through the political process to effect change for the good and freedom of the individual. It is through individual freedom that societies are free. I am Publius. You, kind reader, are Publius. I invite you to share this blog with any other Publius or potential Publius you know.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Day 1: Vote your conscience Over the past month, social media posts, tweets, chats, etc. have been replete with “vote as if…” admonition...
-
Day 7: Congressional Term Limits During the first century of our republic’s history, which is to say since the ratification of the Const...
-
Day 4: COVID-19 For a year, we have explored issues of interest vis-à-vis the 2020 election, yet I have been remiss in that I have not a...
-
Day 1: Vote your conscience Over the past month, social media posts, tweets, chats, etc. have been replete with “vote as if…” admonition...