Potter's Field
columnist: Michael Stahl

Topic: Economics
Trust

---

The deliberately false paradox of socialist idealism-Hayek's view of socialism.

---

by Michael Stahl
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008

I was told, have been told, and indeed still am told, that socialism is a wonderful system that has just not really been given a chance yet. Or that socialism "looks good on paper" and it is the un-evolved, basal, instincts of bad men who undermine it, as a documentary that my high school History teacher showed the class proclaimed. What is one to make of that? That socialism is the perfect system, but for that pesky reality that creeps in from time to time? That's what I took from it, though I suspect the documentarians had other plans for my thought.

Here, I think, as with many things of a political nature, part of the problem is in definition. Determining the potential of a economic, or political, strategy without knowing what exactly it is is asking for trouble. Trouble of the kind those bad folks who doom socialism in the first place just love. Socialism is not welfare, or government work programs even, or even moderate regulation, it is a command economy. A command economy being just that, an economy centrally planned and operated by a central authority to ensure equality. As a source for that I would list none other than libertarian deity and Austrian economist extraordinaire F.A. Hayek in his book The Road to Surfdom. There is a difference between these things, and it is just as wrong to claim that the constant and growing welfare state and insidious bureaucracy are element of socialism as it is to claim that the military industrial complex and aggressive nationalism are elements of the free market. These things are correctly, if rarely, defined as fascism, or aggressive national socialism. It's an ugly truth, but it is true, and for rightists who disagree, I draw this conclusion from Hayek's work as well.

So, now that we have a working knowledge of what socialism is, and what it is, in its pure form,not, we can begin to analyze its utter unworkability. A long diatribe on the vicious attack on individualism such a system would certainly entail is unnecessary, as the matter can be resolved, among adults wise in the world at least, with one word, trust. It really does boil down to trust. The premise of true socialism(and communism it's political blood brother) is the belief that by centrally controlling and directing industry, the system can be made to be more efficient, and in so doing impart greater prosperity to the population. Greater efficiency might indeed be possible, or at least the premise is reasonable, and the goal of then of distributing the proceeds of that efficiency evenly seems idyllic. Everyone gets what they need, and everyone has what they need, perfect. The problem is trust. In order to enforce that command economy, the central planners must have both the authority, and the sheer physical force to impose the idyllic efficiency where it would not otherwise exist, and this means that those selfsame planners must not only be good people, but must all be true saints, as they have the entire wealth of a nation at their fingertips, and are the ultimate authority in its disposal. Personally, I find the belief in saints innumerable to be a bit of a stretch. To my knowledge, no ruling class in a "socialised" or communist country has lived in the same manner as the "workers". Socialism, as alluded to by the title of Hayek's book, really has much more in common with old time feudalism in practice, if not in rhetoric, and indeed a argument could be made that the Lords of old looked after the common good as well.

Socialism is a form of collectivism, and as such is doomed, since there will always be a one who calls the shots in any collectivist society. This means that the one, or ones, are the master, or Lords, and the rest are, well, serfs at best, and more likely slaves. It is a truly sad commentary that in the land that John Locke and Tom Paine built the greatest hope of an individualist is that the horrors and aristocracy of fascism might prevail over the thievery and aristocracy of socialism and so delay, for a scant time, the death of the individual.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
3 thumbs so far

©2008 Michael Stahl, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Michael Stahl only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael Stahl is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Michael Stahl of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.