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. I have been unable (until now) to buy a copy of Mises' Sozialismus or The Anti-Capitalist Mentality but I don't really know if these books will help me understand the root of the problem. I'll explain now.
Over the course of the years I've met many activists from many different, often contrasting ideologies: Secessionists, Communists, Anarchists, self-styled Moderates etc. What has always struck me, and is a constant source of amazement, is how self-proclaimed left-wingers (mostly self-styled Socialdemocrats or Progressives), or at least the bulk of them, tend to come from those classes which have traditionally been portrayed as "enemies of the people". In my personal experience the average Socialist has above average wealth, good education, lives in a (not impoverished) urban area, comes from a well-to-do family etc. While you'd expect a starving Andean peasant to embrace Socialism as a naive escape from his horrid background you won't expect an European borgeouse to be a fervent Socialist, much less an industrialist.
While it's pretty clear to understand why industrialists usually pay lip-service to Socialist ideas (taxpayers-backed health care and pensions, trade unions on a leash, perhaps the chance of a few incentives to pervert market rules), I find it much much harder to understand why someone would support an idea which would much reduce his/her lifestyle. Of course there's always the hypochrisy clause: everyone is to be robbed blind, except for me. Everyone has to pay a carbon tax, except for me. I often wonder what's inside these persons' heads (water and sawdust, like my elementary teacher used to say, perhaps?) when they complain neverendingly about the latest tax hike and keep on electing the same officials, keep on supporting the same system which is robbing them blind. The best they can do is tell their accountant to "find a way to pay less taxes". Everybody has to pay his fair share, but me.
Socialism has wrecked Europe beyond recognizition, more in the spirit than anywhere else: how can such a terrifying ideal be so deep-rooted? Will we ever get rid of it? Napoleon used to say "space and money I can always recover, time never"... how right he was! Wealth can be recreated through hard work and sound politics but who will give us back more than a century of lies?
This is an excellent topic and its sorta related to another topic I opened up on this subforum, Political and Economic jargon. I think Hayek's Road to Serfdom addresses this issue quite well. Hayek is far from perfect and poses some questionable alternatives which appear to be at least quasi-socialistic but his core explaination about why socialism became and remained popular in the western democracies is good stuff. I think Professor Long's lecture about Left and Right ( promoting Rothbard's ideas) was pretty good too.
I think Mises hit the nail on the head. It is an anti-capitalistic mentality which for many represents socialism as the only viable alternative. It is Marx's definition of capitalism that has survived and became more popular than the Austro-Free Market definition of the same term. Personally, I'm not against socialism insofar as society cooperating and individuals helping eachother out. However, there is a difference between VOLUNTARY and COERCIVE socialism and I obviously I support the former. In fact, I firmly believe that Free Market Capitalism ( as libertarians and anarchocapitalists define it) IS voluntary socialism since the market wouldn't function without trade. Capitalism works because it acknowledges that it is in the entrepenuer's self-interest to provide something that benifits society at large. Those benifits translate into helping himself as well as enriching the lives of the consumers ( society).
Socialists are hesitant and can only grudingly acknowledge that free market capitalism has helped the common man more than any other socio-economic system known to date. Capitalism allowed the common man to be able to own property, accumulate capital, and determine his own lot in society. In other words, it is economic freedom. Capitalism furthermore serves the common man ( middle and lower class) more than anyone else. If Capitalism was a rich-only exclusive club, then it wouldn't be very successful since the majority of consumers are the middle class. Capitalists ( businesmen and entrepenures) must meet the demands of the majority middle class consumers in order to be successful , it is in their own best interest.
But as Hayek explained, the majority of socialists ( or quasi-socialists, social democrats) are not evil by nature. In fact, most of them have very good intentions and really do care about the more unfortunate in society. However, many social-democrats do not have the guts or desire to enact a 'revolution,' as described by Marx, to institute a full-fledged socialist government.
The social-democrats promote the 'lighter side' of Marx's ideas without all the violence. They still hold fast to democratic institutions and believe socialism is achievable within democracy. Many of them, unfortunatly, are blind to the fact that the road towards socialism leads to one destination and that is a totalitarian state. The family resemblence to communism among the various lesser degrees of socialism; social democracy , democratic socialism, green democracy, democracy , socialism, is undeniable though. Additionaly, the cousins of socialism; fascism,ultranationalism,nationalist socialism, nazism, are not as clear to the sociailst but they are all branches of coercive COLLECTIVISM.
Hayek was stunned when he arrived in London. The popular thought in London before and during WW2 was that Hitler's Nazi Germany was a CAPITALIST State, i.e. capitalism at its worse. Since many intellectuals in England flirted with socialism at the time ( still do) they were quick to blame capitalism for the rise of fascism and nazism when in fact Hayek showed great evidence that, in fact, the 'right wing' extremism in Germany, Italy, Spain, Croatia, etc were traits of totalitarian socialism ( collectivism). This is what inspired Hayek to write Road to Serfdom.
But reinvented socialism ( or apologetic socialism) has gained much ground up to today because of the Cold War period. As far back as the Russian revolution, social democrats and democratic socialists have made a break with the communists and actually, in time, became anti-communists because they rejected the clumsy speed and authoritarian methods of communism to achieve a pure socialist state ( as described by Marx.) Only during WW2 did the social democrats make alliances with their communist cousins because of the greater threat of fascism which they wrongly percieved as capitalistic. After WW2 the 'left,' even in the United States, resumed its anti-communist agenda. For example, the modern neo-cons have their roots on the 'left' because at one time they were democratic socialist that aggressively stood up to communism in the cold war era. Let there be no mistake, even the diet socialists ( thats what I call the social democrats and neocons) desire a type of socialist State much like the communist did but the means they use to achieve that end are different and the end itself is subject to degree based on the various ideologies among the socialist camps.
I talk to Europeans all the time and sometimes I get discusted how infatuated a lot of western Europeans with different degrees of socialism. As if they forget their true liberal heros ( classical liberal) such as Bastiat and Lord Achon who believe what many of us anarchocapitalists and libertarians believe today, the idea of individual liberty trumping all because less government always equals more freedom.
Like I said, the majority of the diet socialists are not bad people and really do desire to help the struggling people in society. However, they look at us as enemies of the struggling man ( and society) because the wrongly percieve us as the spokesmen of the rich. This is mostly because of the modern transformation of the 'right' and they wrongly associate us with the same 'right.' In reality we seek to achieve the same ends as the diet socialists, that being helping society as a whole, but we suggest a totally different means of achieving that end. They merely want to hand the poor some food to hold them over until they demand more, we want to hand them ECONOMIC FREEDOM. It sorta reminds me of an old but wise proverb: ' Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime.'
Socialism is easy. You don't like poverty? Simply take from the rich and give to the poor. You don't like the health system? Grant the government total control over it. The philosophy required to understand why it can't work is inaccessible to most. People can believe in socialism on purely emotional, instinctual grounds. That is not true for liberty.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Thanks everybody for your comments, particulary to Z Man and Vienna.
Socialism is so deeply enrooted in European and Western culture that it's often very difficult even to explain persons the basis of the problem. For example recently I caused more than one eyebrow to be raised in horror when I contended that a popular European "pro-market" politician is politically and economically a Socialist. Even self-proclaimed anti-Communists have difficulties grasping the point, perhaps I should say that they are the ones who find it really difficult to understand that "opposing Socialism" means a little more than shouting a stream of profanities when a red flag is waved and that "free market" actually means equal opportunities for everyone and not just handing out doles to ailing manufacturing conglomerates. Classical Anarchists are much better under this point of view.
I also have another couple of questions which have developed from the original topic.
First. Can we say that Nationalism and Socialism are closely related? I remember reading somewhere that Fascism is domestic Socialism while Communism is international Socialism and I tend to agree with this (not-so-standard) definition. I have come to believe that without the nation-state trappings and muscle Socialism would have never developed into the present monster. I may have been influenced by the fact that most Socialists tend also to be Nationalists or, at very least, chauvinists: the old mantra "my country is better than yours" is continously echoed and usually free health care, powerful police forces, strong bureaucracies etc are considered something to be proud of and to be used to belittle the "barbarians" from abroad.
Second. How long will it take for the whole system to collapse? I have read van Creveld's and Barzun's theories and I tend to agree with them that the present Socialist nation-state will disintegrate not because of external attacks by terrorists or foreign armies but because, plainly put, they will go broke. High taxes and rampant inflation can only be used to an extent since, even if you have a subjugate population (like is the case with Europe) and a very strong police force soon or late the economy will simply grind to an halt and then you simply won't have any more money to pay you thugs with. But while I tend to agree that the inability to defend citizens from violence (despite the ever-increasing number of policemen and ever-tightening security measures) and the inability to fulfill promises of income security (particulary to retired persons) will be the main causes for the disintegration, I simply cannot agree with them that smaller entities (towns. counties etc) will simply step in to replace the dying Colossus. Most of my political activity has been at local level and I have come to have even less respect for local politicians (mayors etc) than for their national counterparts. Towns spend money faster than a drunken sailor would and local politicians are even more imbued in Socialist values than their "national" colleagues. "Income redistribution" is one of the most frequently employed phrase and in those European countries where "local government" reforms have been carried out (France, Italy etc) local taxes have litterally spiralled out of control, while there's an ever-increasing burden of local legislature which is often even more Socialist in scope than national one. Not a pretty picture I would say...
Unfortunately I do not see any permanent collapse occuring of its own accord.
Sure the current system will fail soon enough, as it cannot indefinitely sustain the fiscally disastrous policies forever. But as we have seen throughout history, the statist regime will be overthrown, or will crumble itself, only to be replaced by another statist regime. While you would think that perpetual government failure would lead most people to realise that governments do more bad than good, instead they stick to the completely unfeasible idea of a good government. This is an unrealistic fantasy sustainable only in the short run, and as we have seen with the US, no system of checks and balances can prevent ambition and special interests from taking over, since the entire system depends on the presence of more good politicians than bad ones, and this simply never occurs due to the very nature of politics.
In the rare possibility that we may see a more free society replace the previous one, since it will still be a variant of the mixed economy, it will inevitably tend towards more intervention, as the government will have to interfere more and more to fix its own mistakes. Moreover, such a society is likely to occur in the presence of a strong background socialist ideology developed over the ages, and this will likely corrupt the minds of the masses, no matter what their disillusionment may have been during the previous regime.
Only some sort of concerted effort to show people the real dangers of socialism through the process of education can possibly reverse this trend, but given that public educaion is in the hands of the government, this is incredibly hard to do. Eitherway, I don't see this collapse happening by itself.
Kakugo:Please help me understand this.
Great topic. I wish I had more to add, but no less important I think, is the observation that it often takes far fewer words to be wrong than it takes to unravel a misconception.
It's not fair, but on Socialism's 'side' is that it is intellectually simplistic. The greater the economy of words of an argument (the soundbite, for instance) the greater the impact/the more damage inflicted.
Of course, this doesn't account for why simplistic sounding free-market soundbites don't gain traction. I don't have an answer to that.
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.
There are probably several factors involved, but one that occurs to me is a poor understanding of the economics involved. Every family or individual is constrained in their purchases by their budget or income--the economics of it is more or less clear. But when one talks of government and politics, the economics of the issue is ignored, sort of a free lunch fallacy. It's not so easily perceived that political power is still constrained by economics. When people talk politics or vote, they rarely consider how much their various proposals would cost, or understand why government proposals will tend to be less efficient and more costly than private alternatives. Education and health care are good examples here.
A related factor might be the "magical" powers of government. That is, government has the authority to compel people to do things, but once again, people ignore how expensive enforcement is, especially if significant numbers of people resist the government's laws or regulations. And of course, the legitimacy of government granted by many people tends to overlook the moral issue of social coercion, and its unintended consequences.
Besides, socialism (and even communism) have noble, egalitarian goals, and people prefer to overlook the ignoble means required to achieve them, thus ignoring the point that an immoral means makes it difficult or impossible to achieve a moral goal.
ayrnieu: Kakugo:Please help me understand this. Chodorov explains the popular appeal. Rothbard explains the intellectual appeal.
That was a very good read, thank you. Sadly while Rothbard's piece is really excellent in uncovering how the unholy alliance between Socialism and some religious movements and social elites came to be it still leaves open the big question: how could middle class fall for Socialism? Most Marxist writers considered the middle class probably worse than the aristocracy or the various oligarchies and the horrifying Bolsheviks' eradication of the Kulakis (slightly richer farmers owning land, as opposed to the desperately poor muzhiks) should have rang an alarm bell. Aristocrats simply grabbed as much as they could and ran away: the Kulakis lacked both the means and the connections to flee. Failing that the present widening gap between modern day aristocracies and the ever-growing legions of paupers should be a sobering remainder of the evils of Socialism: owners of large, well-connected financial empires are taking the place of the Soviet nomenklatura, while national and supernational bodies are taking the place of the stern, implacable Soviet bureaucracy. The luckiest members of the middle class are clawing their way to the top (think of the Saxon or Frankish aristocracy of service) while most of it is constantly pushed towards the bottom. Progressive taxation is a major culprit (money aristocrats have legions of highly skilled lawyers and accountants who'll ensure they'll legally pay as little taxes as possible while middle class "tax dodgers" are usually made an example of) but not as bad as fiat money, which can litterally wreck even a household of savers.
Perhaps I should really read Paul Gottfried's The Thanatos Complex.
Economic ignorance and envy are surely big factors but they are not enough to explain how Socialism became so incredibly popular, in spite of the immense body of evidence about its absolute evil. It will also be interest to see how Socialist leaders and intellectuals will justify the incoming economic collapse of most welfare-societies. We are already seeing the first cracks develop in Europe and at the moment "tax dodgers" are the favorite scapegoats. Problem is even a primary school student could do the math and see that even if all taxes were to be duly paid there would still be an immense gap left.
Again thanks to all of you who have taken part in this interesting conversation.
Kakugo:how can such a terrifying ideal be so deep-rooted?
I suspect a book like The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins might be of use here - which discusses exactly what ideas (memes he calls them) need to do to survive.
It's important to understand that some memes aren't designed to be beneficial the the individuals that store and communicate those memes... instead they are memes which benefit the "social group" that the individual is a part of. Religion, Patriotism etc. are good examples of such memes - why else would hundreds of thousands or millions of people have perished in the crusades or so many of the various wars that we've embarked on throughout history?
As an aside, I think this probably explains the success of central banking as well. Where did the first central bank come from? England, at a time when the English government didn't have enough money to pay soldiers to continue the war with France and they found themselves incapable of raising additional revenues (the market for bonds having been seriously discouraged by recent losses and the population in general being reluctant to cough up any additional tax dollars). The central bank that they developed to solve this problem was not of benefit to the vast majority of individuals in the English social group at the time but it was a serious competitive advantage for the English social group itself over, for example, other social groups that didn't have central banks (i.e. subtle taxation) and weren't able to as easily bleed resources out of the population to pay for troops. The English could then devote much greater resources to military than other nations in which people got miffed and refused to pay - in England their consent to pay wasn't even required any more!
One additional book which might be of interest is Jared Diamond's "Collapse". In particular the chapter where he discusses New Guinea and the difference between Top Down and Bottom Up cooperation/planning... which roughly correspond to compulsory/voluntary social contribution.
I think it's more to the point to explain why capitalism has any adherents. Socialism, government control and forced direct 'cooperation', aren't new things. Capitalism is. People are wired to see and understand direct cooperation, and when they don't see it occurring want to force it into existence where they think there will be a benefit. They can understand a person being responsible for something, like the president being responsible for 'the economy'. They can't as easily grasp implicit cooperation and individuals solving aggregate problems by pursuing the betterment of their own situations.
When people started moving out to the suburbs socialists looked at it as a problem to be solved. Where would these people live, buy food, get gas, do for leisure, etc? And from the point of view of a central planner it looks like a massive problem. It doesn't occur to them that someone will open a gas station, someone will build more housing, open a movie theater, a grocery store, etc., without being told to do so by some authority.
People are hard wired to understand socialism. They are not hard wired to understand capitalism.
xahrx:People are hard wired to understand socialism. They are not hard wired to understand capitalism.
This is a great point, and one that libertarians, like myself, often forget. I find myself saying "how is it not obvious to you that people are individuals, and you don't have the right to treat them as cogs in a machine?" The answer is - throughout history people have been treated as cogs in a machine. It is a new idea that I ought to enjoy my life, and make choices. I do see some oddness with Marxism, though - Marx is seemingly concerned with production and material prosperity. The problem is, it's not clear why these things are important if men are not supposed to enjoy their lives and pursue their own happiness. That's what Marx was trying to do, I think - square this new idea, which was so powerful that people around the world quickly began to pay lip service to it - of individual rights, happiness, and so on, with the old conception of a brutual, unenjoyable life lived in poverty out of necessity. If no man is supposed to choose his own destiny, why is it good to have lots of stuff?
Socialism is intuitive. It is just like when government officials increase taxes and project tax revenues based on current revenue without taking into account the downturn that the taxes will cause the economy to take.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Socialism still has its appeal for a number of reasons. Hayek's assertion certainly still ranks high on the list of determinants of socialism-belief, especially in academia. Academics and professors, since many failed to remain in the market do to "rivalrous behaviour" and competition, chose teaching in universities largely because incompetence is acceptabe there due to the fact that other market rejects are already there and also becasue much of academic work today is subsidized by government. Government subsidies ensure that competence is unnecessary and that ideas don't have to work in academia to be popular. In the real world of the market, impractical, and ultimately immoral ideas, are rejected and thus the market requires rational, active minds, not subsidized ones.
This rejection by the market leads to envy and resentment and when these little, little minds amalgamate in academia, you create a left-wing vibe that has permeated nearly every field of study in some way. My first sociology professor had us read a book written by democratic socialists. My first political science professor was a self-professed "progressive" who explicitly believed in democratic socialism, and, of all classes, my constitutional law class was "taught" by a hot-headed, highly emotional, self-professed Marxist woman from Barbados. Hellish times indeed.
Another reason why socialism is still popular is that, ultimately, its evil nature has been distorted and capitalism's benevolent nature has been equally distorted. Its as simple as that. And this distortion is done primarily by the "intellectuals" in academia.
"If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom." --Murray Rothbard
I don't actually think Socialism in it's original form has a widespread appeal. Does anybody actually believe in building a perfect society where everybody works according to his ability and everybody gets paid according to his needs? I don't think so.
What we have instead is "reflexionary anti-capitalism". See it all comes from the Frankfurter School, from the invention of the idea of "critique": basicaly they introduced they idea that an intellectual doesn't have to do constructive crticism i.e. suggest practical ways to fix things, he can just criticize stuff that's wrong and that's it. Of course, this is a very seductive idea: by just criticizing, one can feel good about himself, one can feel and appear to be caring, enlighteneted, and compassionate, but there is zero responsibility, as he doesn't need to suggest anything that would work better, and of course, it is very easy to find fault and even evil in everything people do, after all, people are people. This is a very cheap ego-drug.
Now, widespread critique, "critical stance" (as a sort of a lifestyle), "counterculture" etc. has a consequence: when enough people criticise whatever currently is even though not offering alternatives, sooner or later they will think any alternative would be better. They don't have a clear plan because there is nothing scientific in that which they do, they concentrate on critique and then ususally support the simplest, most primitive state action against the given "issue" that happens to come around. To someone like Marx, they would look like moaning children who randomly bang rocks together hoping something will come out of it. He would be very annoyed with them :)
Thus what is widespread isn't a clearly thought out Socialist plan, but just a reflexive, gut-instinct anti-capitalism.
Intellectually it's not dangerous at all, practically it is because they managed to lower the level of public education so much that people who haven't ever read 100 books that weren't on the curriculum call themselves intellectuals with a straight face and a lot of people believe they truly are.
Miklos Hollender:What we have instead is "reflexionary anti-capitalism".
I agree. The socialism espoused, if it is espoused, is never explicitly labelled as such. It is always covered in a false veneer of goodwill or comapssion for the poor and is usually promoted in the negative, anti-capitalist form.
But what ticks me off the most is the utterly corrupt conflation of neoliberalism and free-market capitalism. My former professor at SJC commits this fallacy with a frightening level of ease in his beginning statements in this latest diatribe in his February Monthly Review Article.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Corporations are an extension of the state.
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.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
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
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.
Peace
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.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap