Lately I have been doing some reading, prompted by discussions with self styled "Socialists". Mostly impressionable liberals, dedicated to acting contrary to the status quo, not out of principle but out of contrarian tendencies. These people have failed in the most simple task, an analysis of Communism/Socialism.
I have been reading "The Communist Manifesto" and"1984" (George Orwell for you science folks). The one thing I noticed was how easily Communism and Socialism lend themselves to a state apparatus like the one described in “1984”.
There are several issues that come as necessary consequences of Socialism. First one must understand what Socialism means. It is a theory that strongly resembles religion, for once you note a flaw or weak point, the socialist immediately says “Nay sir, this is not MY socialism, ‘tis but a straw man.” This is all too reminiscent of “Nay sir, this “hell” you speak of is not my Catholicism, ‘tis but a straw man.” Indeed, indeed. The only fair method to judge Socialism (here I shall use this as a synonym to the degree that it corresponds to Communism) is to read its proponents and critically view its various (and often bloody) instantiations in the world, both past and present.
Socialism is somehow rooted in what might be termed an honorable notion, the equality of all and justice for the working class. It claims for itself, a promised utopia, yet delivers only a dreary dystopia, one best described through the eyes of Winston Smith. Yes this fictional “Ingsoc” (“English Socialism” Orwellian term) is seen most well embodied in North Korea, a country whose system promises all the Utopia of the Manifesto, and delivers all the destruction of “Ingsoc”.
Socialism requires control of all resources, currency, credit, material, and labor by a government. This creates quite a problem, because it effectively ends a free market. The free market works well (although not perfectly) because it naturally allocates resources and avoids a massive bureaucracy.
For instance, in a Capitalist society, such as the United States, I may travel back and forth to the coast (for recreation) as much as I please, so long as I can afford this in currency earned through my labor and my skills. These skills acquired at a price, namely a college education, both costly and long. In a socialist country, the government must allocate resources. To decide who should get what is difficult, because some obviously need more than others. Thus a massive bureaucracy must arise. How much fuel should a person get to drive, how much if he is married, if he has children, if he has a sick father in Arkansas, or Arizona, or Alaska? What is the formula? Thus such an allocation becomes either formulaic, unbending to actual needs, or at the discretion of a bureaucrat. This is only one example of the absolutely destructive nature of Socialism.
Second is the destruction of ambition, motivation and innovation. For instance, one may innovate for one of two reasons. 1) Benefit for mankind. 2) Personal profit. Capitalism allows for both forms of motivation, socialism only one. Thus Socialism would certainly inhibit the growth and forward progress of society. Also, in a socialist country, one would be paid how? On how hard he works? No, impossible, this is capitalism, but rather on the fact that he exists. Thus the man who works in the health department 12 hours a day to help people and the man that shows up for 7 hours and takes a 2 hour lunch would be paid the same. In fact, why even come to work? Why not sleep in and collect your food rations later? It would punish the hard working and reward the lazy.
Finally liberty. Capitalism gives you the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. For instance, in the US, one may live as a communist, vote for the Communist Party, live on a commune, espouse communist views, read communist books, and travel to communist countries. This is of no concern to the government, and no concern to the citizenry. But in a socialist nation, the government must absolutely crush and capitalism, and must imprison or snuff out such people. One could not, conversely, go live on some land and build a society of capital. Simply put it would attract those in society who wished for a better life, who had ambition, and socialism would crush this to maintain its system. Such an act would prove the superiority of the free market, and has done so in China, Vietnam and Laos. Socialism requires Orwell’s Thought Police, they are intrinsically linked to Socialism.
Posts
The Trump Dream Team
8 hours ago
6 comments:
Good post- this is a useful reference for me so I can keep up with your discussion with D'Arcy. I notice that he's using the "that's not MY Communism" argument currently. The parallels with religion are obvious.
PS- all your links on the left-hand side of the blog are knackered. You need to edit them and remove the extra "http://" each of them has.
I'm kind of wary of claiming that Capitalism/Socialism do things, but I would challenge these:
(1) The lack of socialistic policies certainly has not prevented the bureaucracy from being as large as it is today. And I'm not sure that having this layer of human-management labor in corporations is really that much different, in terms of the decisions that these people will make at great effect to the lives of ordinary people, who have no democratic say in the process--and a market purchase does not count as a vote in any meaningful way.
(2) I would challenge the idea that capitalism naturally allocates resources. Capitalism is not a natural process; profit-motives mean that resources will not be allocated "naturally" (here I assume you mean, simply to meet natural needs or demands), but rather in a way that best creates profits for the market entrepeneurs involved. This means creating a demand, where it doesn't exist, if necessary. A very brief look at marketing over the past century would disclose that fact easily. Take a look at the documentary "Century of the Self" on Google Videos--parts 2 and 3 are what I've seen and they're both fascinating.
(3) So, I wouldn't challenge the fact that socialist governments have caused enormous disruptions--so have capitalist governments. Not trying to equivocate: there's a great book by James Scott, calling Seeing Like A State, which takes a look at these state-driven development schemes and the enormous devastation they produce, as well as the epistemological consequences they have. Check it out if you get the chance.
(4) You keep equivocating between socialism and communism.
That's it for now...
Yaman,
Thanks for the post. Let me go point by point and we can see what shakes out. There has been a long discussion on richarddawkins.net about a lot of things, one is socialism. One thing I have said there, and I mean, is that I will not hold dogmatic positions, and I am open to all evidence, so with that in mind I begin this, willing and ready to be convinced otherwise. Also, I am not saying the US is the ideal form of Capitalism, far from it.
1) The issue with corporate bureaucracy is that it a) does exist, b) can be remedied. It is remedied through competition. For instance, an inefficient company will be more expensive to run, and thus it will pass on expense to customers. Now for a customer you have an inefficient company offering over priced goods/services. Another company will come do it better and take the business. It is nearly Darwinian in its ruthlessness. There can only ever be one government, inefficiently plodding about.
2) You forget to not that most large companies are publicly owned, and with the proliferation of mutual funds and 401k programs, many more people are taking part in ownership of companies. Any CEO can be voted in or out of his position. And if people wanted to pool capital and buy large stakes in a company, they may do so. They are known as activist investors, and they often change the course and policy of companies. So your statement is only relevant to privately owned companies.
3) I will take a look at that book, thank you.
4) I am indeed conflating the two. The reason? I am going from the basis of the Communist Manifesto. In it Marx, claims other ‘socialism’ (i.e. German) is fake. I would agree with Marx in this analysis. But in the spirit of accuracy, I am speaking of a government which owns industries, owns land, controls credit, controls political systems and parties, and may have eliminated currency altogether.
Thanks.
Al.
Socialise essentials. Use the profit motive for everything else.
The perfect synthesis.
Adam Smith capitalism is fine he however stipulated an important condition:
that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. Unfortunately this has never occurred. The same criticism you levelled at socialism, in that wherever it has manifest it has been Orwellian, can be levelled at capitalism, its never worked.
Gordon,
I agree with everything you have said. Our capitalism is broken.... it is still far better than any instantiation of socialism.
Post a Comment