Posted by
Patrick Henry on Monday, March 23, 2009 10:30:37 PM
So, the problem with socialism is that it doesn't work, and, ultimately, nations that try
to adopt it end up having to start over economically, resorting to some Frankenstein-
like hybrid between socialism and capitalism that tacks in the economic winds like a
storm-tossed sailboat about to capsize. But why doesn't it work?
First, it is based on the premise of justified social violence. Absent a miraculous
multiplication of total resources, government must wrench them away from those
who own the most, and redistribute them among others, many of whom lack the
skill and knowledge to manage them appropriately. Call it theft, call it revolution,
call it nationalization, it adds up to the same thing. The means of production have
been ripped away from their previous (and many would argue rightful) owners and
given to others. The violence of such a process creates a cancer that inevitably
grows into counter-violence (revolution) of one kind or another. The American
Revolution is a case in point. King George took what belonged to the colonists
by high-handed and sometimes violent means. When the colonists reached the end
of their tolerance, they rebelled and threw off British rule by violent means.
A second reason socialism will not work is that its fabled "classless society" is
a fairy tale. Do you see a classless society in Communist China? Or in Cuba? Or
Venezuela? Do you even see it in partially socialist France, where Muslim immigrants
live in filthy ghettos with astronomical unemployment rates and what one human
rights advocate called "virtual apartheid?" No! What you see is a ruling class and a
peasant class -- just like in many capitalist countries. And in the non-repressive
European semi-socialist republics, what you see is a peasant class with an enormous
entitlement mentality. For example, student workers striking in Paris over the mere
suggestion that their six-hour-a-day jobs with tw-hour lunch breaks might not be
guaranteed but would rest on worker merit. The classless society is a fun thing to
idealize about, but it's like the one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater. We
understand the components, but nowhere do we see the reality. People develop
differently. That's the fact. Some are industrious, some strong, some clever, some
innovative, some persistent, while others are none of those things. The more a society
tries to deny the reality of natural selection, the more it becomes detached from human
reality and lost in some kind of twisted idealism. Karl Marx once argued that "religion
is the opiate of the people." It might more intelligently be argued that "socialism is the
opiate of the people."
Socialism won't work because of the ugly transformation it usually undergoes when it
becomes obvious that it's not working. Saul Alinsky, in whose teachings Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton are steeped, taught that socialism is a step down the road toward
"the paradise of communism." Show me even ONE Communist country that even vaguely
resembles a paradise. The "government" that assumes to speak for "the people" ultimately
becomes what the philosopher Immanue Kant called "the thing in itself." It becomes an
oligarchy of the powerful, as intent on retaining its power as the most ruthless of the
capitalist barons. As Index Mundi puts it: "Most socialist governments have ended up
being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite." Think Stalinist Russia,
Maoist China, National Socialist Germany (Adolf Hitler), Castro's Cuba and Chavez'
Venezuela. Explain such notable historical examples away if you will, but both the
progression and the outcome are undeniable.
Now, somebody says, "well, we still see socialist practices in some countries that
don't call themselves socialists. How come?" The answer is as simple as it is ugly.
The encroachment of socialist policies is the national equivalent of having polio,
a now vanquished disease that, while many survived it, left them crippled for life.
Take, for example, the United Kingdom. In 1945, Clement Atlee, avowed socialist
and head of the British Labour Party became Prime Minister. He undertook to
engineer and implement a radical socialist reformation of British social and
economic policy. He nationalized major companies, forcing them into unnatural
mergers and public/private partnerships. At first these monstrosities seemed to
catch wind, but clumsy and overtaxed they began to flounder badly against capitalist
competition. Some survived, some didn't. Few were better off for the experience.
Britain nationalized healthcare, reducing both the quality and quantity of needed
medical treatment, ultimately leading to healthcare rationing where the elderly and
the chronically ill were simply left to perish. People stood -- and stand -- in line for
months or even years to be cared for, and many die awaiting treatment. EVERYBODY
is entitled to free healthcare, but few can get it, it isn't very good when they do and they
may die or suffer permanent damage while they are waiting for it. This is better? Not!
It would be difficult to claim that modern Britain is a socialist republic. But some of
the scars of socialism -- like the disfigurements of polio -- have been impossible to get
rid of because of the entitlement mentality they created.
So, what are the chances of real socialism coming to America? Please read the third
and final installment of this post tomorrow for the answer.
P.S. In response to a critic of the first installment, no, I do not believe that Lindsay
Graham is a socialist because he favors nationalizing some banks. Whether nationalizing
insitutions is good or bad depends entirely on why it's done, how it's done and how long
it lasts. Lindsay Graham does not favor nationalizing all banks -- only the ones that
may fail, and whose failure might jeopardize others, starting a cataclysmic cascade of
dominoes that could topple the entire financial infrastructure. And unless they are
already insolvent, he doesn't propose seizing them, but rather buying controlling
interests in them, much as has been done to failed insurance giant AIG. Further,
he doesn't favor perpetual government control of these institutions, but rather a
public/private partnership until the banks are once again healthy and taxpayers
reimbursed. This is a far, far cry from say, Chavez' nationalization of the petroleum
industry in Venezuela. Chavez nationalizes because he wants to stay in power, to
control the people by controlling the nation's primary resource. Responsible advocates
of the temporary nationalization of some American banks don't want to be bankers, or
to control Americans by controlling the banks. They want to save the financial industry.
It's the difference between a centrally planned economy and a temporary form of market
socialism. Think about it.