Widespread appeal of Socialism (and related doctrines)

Ah, you see, the corporate mindset can be very similar to the socialist mindset. Both tend to view individuals as human resources, as functional units of a collective. Modern schooling is designed to create institutionalized, compliant adults to fit into such a model. The fact is, the modern megacorporation relies upon government welfare to stay in existence despite its gross inefficiencies and regulation to prevent the rise of competition. It relies on government-recognized corporate charters to protect its corrupt and inept executives from their own actions, as well as provide a framework for remote stock trades. Such trades, in turn, allow for low-risk, unearned interest income for those who earn more than a subsistence living, allowing an ever growing gap between rich and poor.

Socialists don't realize, you see, that it is government intervention which largely CAUSES inequity, rather than being the solution to it. People in industry, already conditioned to think this way by their schooling and the "human resource" mindset, fall into the trap quite easily.

Again thanks everybody.

Miklos, you probably haven't ever had the "privilege" of dealing of European Socialdemocrats (whatever they are from left or right). Most of them still believe that a perfect society can be built on earth, where a wise government will decide how much everybody should work, how much everybody should spend on what etc. I know this is a distorted vision of the original Marxist doctrine but it's still a pretty close call.

Anedocte time now. I think you will find it amusing.

When I worked in a public library (please keep puns to a minimum... I had to make a living somehow when I was a student) we were required by the commission to keep a very large stock of works by Marx, Hengel, Sartre and other Socialist and Frankfurt School writers. Believe it or not not a single one of those book was checked out in more than three years so the chief librarian bravely battled the commision to have them removed from the shelves (we needed the room, desperately) and put in storage. Curiously during my stay we were often asked for Hitler's Mein Kampf every couple of months or so. We didn't keep it in stock because it was on our "black list" (meaning all past copies had been either stolen, not returned or vandalized).

 

Stranger:

People can believe in socialism on purely emotional, instinctual grounds. That is not true for liberty.

I think I agree with much of what has been said.  Another writer worth reading on this subject is von Kuehnelt-leddihn (in particular his books Leftism and Leftism Revisited, probably also Liberty or Equality?, which is on this site, along with Menace of the Herd).

But I think the desire for liberty can be pretty basic, so I'm not sure the claim that it can't be emotional or instinctive is plausible.  I think plenty of people with no understanding of economics are desparate to "get government off our backs" and that's probably primarily emotional.

Also though it's interesting to ponder why people like socialism it's probably best to devote most effort to attacking the reasons given in support of socialism.  Because anyone with any leanings towards socialism will likely retort that we want laissez-faire because it suits the rich (and their emotional/instinctive desire to protect their ill-gotten gains!).  The arguments between socialism and capitalism then should proceed by considering their consequences. 

Addressing the question as to why it is the upper classes and the educated who tout socialism, it is, to my mind, due to the fact that those who comprise it have more free time and full stomachs. Whatever the hierarchy is, those who are well heeled and fed, with less overall effort, turn their minds to abstractions - philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc. Now these are fine, don't get me wrong, within the context of being productive, but when they are turned upside down, and become noble endeavors in and of themselves, without any connection to underlying economic realities such as scarcity, or without benefit of direct involvement in production, they tend to drift off into some transcendental, fantastic realm. The more free time one has, not connected to any sort of real productive endeavor, is bound to produce notions and ideas removed from the solid, real world. Then within these fantastic constructions, sometimes doctrines will emerge, unproven and untested, that have little to do with reality, hence why force is necessary to effect their implementation. Put another way, when an individual is beset by the vagaries of life, they spend their time battling through it. When civilization advances enough to allow some of the people to have their basic needs met without  near total effort, some are bound to hatch ideas that are detrimental to causes that advanced the civilization in the first place. Nature provides balance in most cases, and it would seem that man has a built in mechanism to make sure that too much peace and prosperity, and what it would bring, is offset by mental rot. 

I remember my business law class(one of my favorite classes so far) was taught by a guy who explained constitutional law quite well.  He explained to us that if the state of Alabama decided to ban black people from bars, they had the right because they are soverign.  He explained there is NO SUCH THING as federal soverignty.  That only state soverignty exists.  That the feds should work for us, not the other way around.  The states are stronger than the feds.  I still believe he wasn't fully libertarian, but he taught us how to think one step at a time.  He also taught us that there is ALWAYS a defense in any court case.  Because if you do not have a defense, you can't make any money.

Not according to my constitutional law professor. According to her, you can wed Jefferson and Marx, socialism and constitutional republicanism. She holds all the nonobjective clauses as absolute necesities as well - Commerce, Necessary and Proper, etc. She believes the Constitution must me "flexible" and "fluid" so that it can "adjust" to the changing conditions of our country because, you know, a right today might be a privilege tomorrow and an act of initiatory force today might be an act of humanitarianism eventually. Piss poor education.

And SJC isn't even a State college which is a sign that the lure of collectivism has infected all of academia, public and private.

 I just came across this great passage from Hazlitt's One Lesson and I thought of this thread. I think it addresses the  OP's question quite nicely. 

"It is often sadly remarked that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues can he more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it. But the basic reason for this ought not to be mysterious. The reason is that the demagogues and bad economists are presenting half-truths. They are speaking only of the immediate effect of a proposed policy or its effect upon a single group. As far as they go they may often be right. In these cases the answer consists in showing that the proposed policy would also have longer and less desirable effects, or that it could benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The answer consists in supplementing and correcting the half-truth with the other half. But to consider all the chief effects of a proposed course on everybody often requires a long, complicated, and dull chain of reasoning. Most of the audience finds this chain of reasoning difficult to follow and soon becomes bored and inattentive. The bad economists rationalize this intellectual debility and laziness by assuring the audience that it need not even attempt to follow the reasoning or judge it on its merits because it is only "classicism" or "laissez faire" or "capitalist apologetics" or whatever other term of abuse may happen to strike them as effective."

Edit: On second thought, I'm sure there's a lot more to it than just that---that's just addressing why the fallacies tend to get propagated. For the much larger question of socialism's appeal, I wonder if looking at the history of how classical liberalism got supplanted by socialism in the 19th century would shed light on the question.

 

I think the issue is manifold, but ultimately it comes down to socialism being 'hidden'. Either hidden behind positive words, like 'welfare' (well fare) or behind incremental advancement of socialism. Most people will prefer personal freedom, but socialism is always brought about under the guise of something else. And once it is in place and enough people are dependent, it is ultimately defended by claiming that removing it will wreck too much havoc among the dependents.

And, sadly, I don't see this changing. People will keep giving up their freedom, one piece at a time, until society and the economy collapses. At which point, a new set of demagogues will take over and proceed to bleed the people for whatever supra-individual goal they have. Until, once again, society and the economy collapses.

Libertas est Veritas:

I think the issue is manifold, but ultimately it comes down to socialism being 'hidden'. Either hidden behind positive words, like 'welfare' (well fare) or behind incremental advancement of socialism. Most people will prefer personal freedom, but socialism is always brought about under the guise of something else. And once it is in place and enough people are dependent, it is ultimately defended by claiming that removing it will wreck too much havoc among the dependents.

And, sadly, I don't see this changing. People will keep giving up their freedom, one piece at a time, until society and the economy collapses. At which point, a new set of demagogues will take over and proceed to bleed the people for whatever supra-individual goal they have. Until, once again, society and the economy collapses.

 

A numer of socialists are surely well-meaning but terribly mistaken in their beliefs. For example recently that old adagio, "hunger in the world" has come back and hit the headlines. We are being told how people in Kenya and Bangladesh run the risk of starving to death because foodstuff prices have risen so much. Do you think they are explaining why Africans are so worse off now than in the '50s or why commodity prices are spiralling out of control? No. Instead they are asking for "developed countries" to "willingly donate" (ie rob at a gunpoint from their defenseless citizens-slaves) 1% of their GDP to "needy countries". Of course the persons speaking are not giving up a single penny willingly or gently asking people to contribute to a charity: it must always be "the State acting".

You brought up the subject of persons who are dependent for their livelihood upon the State. According to Barzun and van Creveld the modern Nation-State not being able to live up to its promises to citizens (particulary retired persons living on welfare) will be one of the two main causes of its demise. I have always wondered what will happen when a Nation-State will discover that it will have to make a choice: extort more money (either through taxation, inflation or debt) from its populace and thus destroy the economy or giving up the welfare State. I have always hoped I won't be there when it will happen but all the clue point towards it happening in the next few years.

Kakugo:

Please help me understand this. I have been actively involved in politics for the past fifteen years and yet I still struggle to understand how can Socialism and all its by-products have such a widespread appeal.

While perhaps not the only source of the problem, a major part of it is the false dichotomy between state capitalism and state socialism. This false dichotomy is reinforced by vulgar libertarians, who use free market rhetoric to defend presently existing corporatism. Take, for example, wage slavery. Most people know it exists, because they experience it themselves: low pay that's constantly being cut, along with their benefits, and little or no alternative options for employment. Many people, perhaps most people, are reduced to living paycheck to paycheck, constantly having to worry about just putting food on the table; all thanks to the artificially limited competition of the state capitalist marketplace. And then there's the free marketeers, so-called, who say everything's just fine. They agreed to work for those low wages. It's all consensual. It's all their fault. And of course, for wanting the wealthy to help pick up the tab on their childrens' educations, (so that maybe, just maybe, they won't have to endure the same wage slavery when they grow up), they're greedy evil bastards, because apparently a few hundred billion in revenue, built off their sweat, isn't enough for Wall Street. (You know, that gang of retards who thought it was a bad thing when they found out CostCo wasn't treating their employees like worthless pieces of human excrement.) They're told "hey, that's just the nature of the game; private property, love it or leave it"; they're hearing it from both sides, the socialists and the capitalists. Wal-Mart put all your mom and pop shops out of business? Hey, that's just the free market. Don't like it? Too bad!

But the one thing no one dare mention, not the state socialists, not the state capitalists, and most certainly not the vulgar libertarians, is that the deck is stacked and free market reasoning, therefore, just doesn't apply. Many, perhaps even most, presently existing property titles are a complete fraud having no connection whatsoever to legitimate acts of homesteading. We have property by mere government decree, not by virtue of human labor mixed with the raw materials of the Earth. Wal-Mart lobbies for an eminent domain "taking" in damn near every town they open up shop, so they don't have to pay market value for the land, but hey, it's big business so it must be good, right? Same goes for damn near every sector of the economy. Lots of regulations and "takings" and licensing and selective prosecution of nonsense laws, a whole system designed to keep out competition and ensure monopoly. Sometimes its quite blatant, like with Microsoft, which gets all of its revenue, 100%, from government intervention in the market in the form of information protectionism; but hey, they turn a big profit, so they must be good. Let's write up a bunch of articles on Mises defending them from those big bad meanies in government, because those are the real culprits. Microsoft isn't the state, it's capital, and capital's good, just like capitalism's good. And so the lies are spun, and most people know its complete BS, but the only alternative they hear is nationalization, central planning, an end to the tyranny of private property, or at least the only thing they know of as private property. Speculation in unused resources? Hey, it's private property! The government said so! As if by magic, for the vulgar libertarians the government has all of a sudden become an authority on what's right; the state socialists, to their credit, are at least consistent.

Maybe a bit of honesty would help improve the situation. Let's start with this: the present system of state capitalism is not a free market or anything even remotely resembling a free market; the present system exists for the enrichment of the parasitic political class, big business and the state, at the expense of the exploited productive class, honest entrepreneurs and laborers. Trying to defend those who collude with the state using free market reasoning is asinine; trying to pretend that the very real exploitation of the present system doesn't actually exist is equally asinine. Let's continue with this: most existing corporations get a majority of their profit by virtue of the state's actions, therefore they are extensions of the state. The state, as a thing incapable of legitimately owning anything, has no property, so anything claimed to be state property, or the property of those corporations deriving half or more of their revenue from the state, directly or indirectly, are unowned and open for homesteading; the employees of those corporations, having transformed those resources into productive use, are the legitimate homesteaders. Hey, look at that. When we defend private property we're not just shilling for a bunch of multinational conglomerates. And a large number of white collar and blue collar workers just got back what's rightfully theirs according to libertarian principle, so oft and conveniently ignored by the vulgar among us. Moving on, let's try this: big businesses as they presently exist are bloated monstrosities subject to the same economic calculation problems, internally, as exist in centrally planned state socialist economies, and thus cannot survive the competition of a free market, so they only maintain their present size by virtue of state protection and subsidy. Centralized business structures are emulations of the state hierarchy, they are not a natural expression of market forces. A free market is more likely to produce, by competitive pressure, a situation where hierarchical wage-for-labor has been completely supplanted, or nearly so, by inter-entrepreneurial relationships. Hey, look at that, a real ownership society, not that nonsense Shrub was trying to sell. I think you get the picture. (And if you don't, well I've been up since yesterday morning so please excuse me if my rant has turned incoherent.)

Or we can continue (and I'm sure the state socialists would love it if we did) to peddle the same old tired load of utter BS - a mental contagion we picked up from our ill-advised alliance with statist American "conservatism" - that everything would be just fine and dandy if only we left those poor downtrodden rich people alone. You know, like Bill Gates, because clearly Windows has enriched all our lives and doesn't actually look like something a 15 year old with the IQ of carrot shat out on his keyboard during an epileptic fit. Behold the wonders of a "free" market! And if you don't like it, you're an idiot!

Rich333 brings up a good point. It's incredibly demoralizing whenever those on the right call the current system "free-market" and actually try to defend it (!) against the left when those wannabe-planners blame every economic woe on the free-market.

Yes, our current system is slightly free. Yes, like every other system with a shred of liberty, basic free-market principles apply.

Still, wages are suppressed and monopolies do form, both due to various anti-competitive measures put in place by wise state-planners. Many big businesses are corrupt... and in bed with the statists!

Those on the right are shooting us all in the foot every time they try to defend the current system.

I hope the forum didn't eat my last post.

edit: No, it just appeared after this one somehow... I posted it again below.

double-post

Kakugo:

Please help me understand this. I have been actively involved in politics for the past fifteen years and yet I still struggle to understand how can Socialism and all its by-products have such a widespread appeal.

The belief that governments can serve a productive purpose performing some actions but should be excluded from other activities is self contradictory and thus unstable.

If government can effectively protect people from crime, it can effectively protect people from hunger.

In order to fix this inner contradiction you must move towards either the totalitarian state or complete statelessness. The transitition towards the total state seems to be easier of the two.

 

 Rich, while what you say it's true it has made smile a little. While of course State interventionism has played havoc on the American economy it's still small fry when compared to Europe or Asia. We may well say that Merchantilism is alive and well and is happily married with Socialism. Come to Europe for a couple of months and if you are not scared to death by our prices you'll see enough to make you believe that the US is still "the Land of the Free", which of course isn't at least not anymore. Go to Korea and have a peak at how the chaebols are capable of offering such incredible deals on export goods thanks to massive government subsidies. Believe me, you Americans still have a lot to learn about "government intervention". Your problem is that you had a relatively free market during the first century and a half of your history, so you have a better outlook on the matter and rightly resent any increase in government intrusion both in your life and business.

Oh, and another thing. Maybe you have never tried running your own business. It's a terrible world out there, even without government intervention. Right now it's a complete nightmare: transport, energy and raw material costs are absolutely out of control, safety measures are adding heavily to production costs without improving working and enviromental conditions, you have to confront yourself with both market laws and heavy government intervention. It's an hostile enviroment to say the least. In such conditions it's obvious that you'll try and make your life as easier as possible. Slovakia is offering us a much lower income tax and tax free electricity? Hell, let's move an assembly line there. There are Regional funds to buy that new useless yet compulsory safety equipment? Let's grab them. Being "morally upright" in such a situation is hard. There are very few that can resist asking for "more". Our cars are not selling anymore because they are all the same overpriced junk? Let's sponsor legislation demanding older vehicles to be outlawed. We are losing our market share to Asian products with a better value for money? Let's demand higher import tariffs, but at the same time let's protest vocally if the Chinese do the same to us, perhaps in retaliation. And so on.

Why is that? Simply because thanks to Jacobism and Socialism the government has become so powerful. A small, local government cannot achieve much with its limited resources. A huge Leviathan can do pretty much whatever it wants.