Topic: Socialism
Socialism begets Authoritarianism Although the goals of Socialism are noble, in practice it cannot achieve those goals.by Gary Trieste
(libertarian)
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
In a discussion, I recently made the following statement:
"Giving the government a superior interest over the individual is the Socialist view of the relationship between individuals and society. Basically it says the individual is inferior to the collective."
I was lambasted for saying this, and criticized for not recognizing the distinction between Socialism and Authoritarianism.
But I would stand by my statement, if not for a rigorous analysis, then for its practical eventuality.
Although in political and economic theory, in the purest sense, there may be a distinction, in practice socialism acts almost identically to authoritarianism.
Socialism seeks to empower man and mankind, by making us all equal under the law and in society; equal socially, economically, intellectually, and aspirationally.
By making us all equal, no one can claim a racial, sexual or intellectual superiority, or abuse a higher level of wealth or influence, to prejudice others.
Being equal also guarantees equal treatment and affirmative rights under the law, such as the rights to receive the modern needs of living, food, clothing, shelter, health care, transportation, and education.
Being equal also of course obversely demands that by law every person has an equal responsibilty and obligation to contribute their equal share of effort to everyone else. In modern societies, this translates into contributing most, if not all, of one's cash earnings to society.
Thus Socialism has the ideal of equality on all levels. Non-discretionary equality. That is - enforced equality, enforced available care, and enforced complete taxation.
That is the ideal of socialism: to each it is to provide all his needs, from each it takes from him all his abilities to produce. Variations on these absolutes, are simply variations from actual Socialism.
In theory, it almost sounds doable. If doable, it would even be an enviable existence for a large portion of the world's population, who would be happy to trade all their work product for the guaranteed necessities of life.
However, in practice, Socialism suffers from several pernicious problems, directly resultant from the fact that human beings are not eusocial animals, to wit:
Not Everyone is Equal;
People endeavor in relation to their perceived return;
People sometimes want more than they need;
Not Everyone values equal social services equally;
Not Everyone cares to be regimented, despite guaranteed services.
As ants, or wasps, Socialism would suit us perfectly, we would (most all) be equal, work as hard as we could, be treated equally, and be provided with everything we need to survive.
But we are not ants or wasps. We are people, and people although leaning strongly social for companionship and support, are equally (or more so) independent creatures as well, who wither when forced to formfit into a social class. The will to break out of an imposed caste is endemic, and does not cease until that freedom is achieved.
As an economically driven social political system, Socialism frays about from within due to the nature of human beings, and their innate vexation against uniformity.
But another level, Socialism suffers from another instability, not related to the nature of the governed, but rather the nature of the governers.
And it is in that, that the practice of Socialism devolves rapidly into Authoritarianism, the very thing its promoters seek to avoid - the stratification of individual inequality.
In Authoritarianism we find entrenched social classes, some classes afforded a legal status of superiority and privilege above others.
We therein find the right to legally impose onerous obligations upon one class to the benefit of another class of people. And the right of another class to make those decisions unilaterally of the governed.
So although Socialism truly is not Authoritarianism in the academic sense, what historically happens is, a citizenry that has willingly accepted Socialist principles for their government, finds that those in charge of the adminstration of those ideals are legally empowered to interpret them any way they want, as long as they superficially justify their actions as in furtherence of the Socialist cause.
The preemptive right of the government to enforce Socialist mandates by edict as interpreted by its leaders, entropically evolves inevitably into Authoritarianism.
The distinctions between Socialism and Communism notwithstanding, this eventuality is exemplified by the Soviet & Maoist communist regimes (and others), who always gave lip service to the idealistic political theory that was ostensibly the basis for their governments, yet in both cases they acted like dictatorships.
Much as in religion, the priest or shaman acts a proxy for God, and speaks for him, and in his name, in Socialist systems the Government acts as a proxy for the ideals of Socialism and makes sweeping policy, legal and social/moral decisions in its name.
In both cases, political power is not found flowing from the pure and noble origins that gives it its moral authority, but rather political power is concentrated in its stand-in, a changling who is not so pure and noble. And much like God, who cannot speak for himself, Socialism likewise cannot speak for itself. Again in both cases, human leaders, acting as proxies for the ideal, inevitably corrupt the administration of the theoretically correct.
The old chestnut applies, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Governmental power will alway become corrupted unless and until that power is truly distributed among the people. Socialism seeks to do this by making all contribute equally and sharing equally, by edict from above. By contrast, Libertarianism seeks to do this by empowering the people individually directly, giving them the same rights and discretions over themselves as government traditionally monopolized for itself.
Whenever power is centralized, as in a socialist society, that power gets usurped by its administrators, and it quickly becomes indistinguishable from authoritarianism. In both cases, Socialism and Authoritarianism, the Government purports to speak for the people, and reserves for itself the superior privilege to decide what shall be right for any individual in particular, in the People's name, and in People's governmental interest. And makes the fundamental moral decision that the collective is superior to the individual.
In the process, Socialism in trying to equalize everyone by freeing the people from themselves and self-interests, coalesces a privileged class, effective high priests who claim to know what is best for everyone else.
And by that authority impose their own superiority via an entrenched oligarchy. Socialism in practice always devolves to Statism, which is nothing more than thinly disguised Authoritiarianism.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gary Trieste only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Trieste 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.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-06-30 20:33:33
Hi Gary,
The words evolve but still we have to be clear on what we mean by them in the present. Makes the communication process just that much more complicated.
Who knows if the future will name today's situation as Obamunism? In discussion we can label an 'ism' in its purest sense. In the real world, every 'ism' is full of shades of gray that only subjectively distinguish it from similar 'isms'.
The unifying characteristic of Socialism and Communism is that they limit choices. They limit choices in consumer goods, in education, in what may be eaten, drunk or smoked...and in leadership. You're right, these systems lead to authoritarianism as power is concentrated and choices are eliminated.
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-07-01 06:43:50
Dear Gary -
Great article. If you haven't read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" of 1944, suggest taking a look as you've nailed the distinction between 2 brands of socialism in your article - though it might be indirect, hence my comment.
The first def. of socialism is public ownership of the means of production - possibly what you refer to as totalitarianism in the above and is communism/fascism.
However, this first def. is very unpopular. Its a hard sell due to the USSR. Instead the socialists like to compete with the liberals and claim it makes you "more equal." This is actually serious philosophical competition between socialists and classic liberals for FREEDOM.
This is a stronger argument and takes advantage of our tendency to like equality, when in reality "equality" through socialism is pure hell, and degenerates into totalitarianism and socialism of the first definition, as you explained.
Unfortunately, moving from the second definition to the first is obviously already happening here in America.
The socialism you write about is state socialism. Anarchist or libertarian socialism is far different. Your observations about state socialism are quite accurate though, and I agree that any form of socialism run by the state would be coercive and limiting by nature. However, libertarian socialism does not seek the regimented, forced equality of the state. As a matter of fact, free association, meaning the freedom to withdraw, and the freedom to pursue your interests are extremely important. The thing about anarchism that makes the whole deal different is that those things that everybody needs can be easily met if there is not a state body or individual collecting all the wealth and making the decisions, while at the same time individuals can pursue their own interests. people are different and have different tastes and inclinations, if education were provided equally for all, one would have the chance to do what one enjoys, change their mind and do something else if thats what they want. Furthermore, as was practiced in the spanish civil war, when areas decided to collectivise, it was done on agreement and those that didn't want to didn't have to, if someone found a method of trade that worked for them they could use it. Anarchist socialism,when practiced in the past, during wartime, brought the standard of living up! Again, it was absolutely voluntary. People work for their perceived return in most cases today, but there is still intrinsic motivation if you're doing what you enjoy, and that is part of the purpose of A-socialism, for people to have a chance to find work that they enjoy and are good at as well as freeing up their time to pursue other interests. It is actually on the side of the individual, in the expression of freedom and the ability to pursue their interests. Imagine, instead of having a huge unemployed population, all those that want to work can, in many cases this would mean shorter work days and weeks, with a better, safer workplace, making more money and the oppurtunities to develop personal interests and goals. Remuneration could be done in many different ways, effort, sacrifice for undesirable jobs, time ....whatever, the point is its up to the people involved to make decisions. Money does not need to be confiscated to create any of this, just the work you would ordinarily do. Everybody works to live except for those who physicaly or mentally can't. And in some cases there are those that simply don't want to, but I think even in those cases if they were given the opportunity to find things they enjoyed and weren't forced into 40 hour work weeks even the layabouts would find themselves doing something constructive. Its not about forcing equality, its about allowing individual as well as mutual benefit and expression. It maintains that it is not the right of one to own the means to a decent existence of many. Everything else is up to the individuals themselves to decide upon or come to agreements or associations that they contribute to and benefit from. When people work they rarely realize they are participating in a social act, one rarely lives directly off what one produces, so they are given a medium (money) to exchange for goods, when most of that money is not being sucked up into just a few hands it means more for the people that actually work. If surplus becomes free and people have more money and more time and opportunity and get to make their own decisions and participate in the decision making at the workplace as well as within their communities the result is true freedom, and an end to illigitamate priviledge as well as the means to live beyond some state handout or primitive capitalist wage system. The only reason most people still cling to this old economic system is that they think someday they'll be able to own everything and sit back and enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor, and rightly so if they've been cheated out of the lion's share of what they have produced for most of they're lives. My contention is that I cannot own 500 acres of land because I can't personally do the work to cultivate it, and if others come and do the work they are entitled to an equal portion of profit, that is only just, anything else is dishonest, it is theft. The state however has no more right to decide who gets what or whats "fair" and "equal." No matter what that would be an imposition, it would heap law upon law seeking to absolve us of the responsability of making our own decisions, to equalize us through deprivation. Our aspirations and intellects are varied and different for a reason, the right to pursue our own aims defines freedom. However, if one's aspiration is to own all the food of the earth and grow fat off the labor of others while people work hard their whole lives and never know the comfort of owning their own home and while people starve to death because they can't afford food because their leaders make crooked deals with banks and corporations to keep them fat and in power serving their needs, that aspiration doesn't reflect the right or freedom of the individual any more than a right to own slaves would. It is illigitamate and unjust and wouldn't exist if not for the state's monopoly of force and violence to back it.
I just read Gary's article on Socialism being defined as Authoritarianism. There is one fatal flaw in his logic, since true democratic socialism provides a mechanism(the ballot box) for people to correct imbalances(the growth of an oligarchy) his argument falls flat on its face. And to suppose that Libertarianism is the superior choice is yet again another fallacy. Libertarianism only works inside someone's head, it the real world that most of us live its completely worthless as a possible social system. I could envision only one possible physical place where such a system could work. If a bunch of people wanted to voluntarily go off to a desert island in the middle of the Pacific and live completely off the land and water then I would concede that such an arrangement might work. But in a complex world such as the one we inhabit such a system would quickly devolve into Corporatism/Fascism. Dan.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
In a discussion, I recently made the following statement: