“Socialism is a wonderful idea.” It is only as a reality that it has been disastrous. Among people of every race, color, and creed, all around the world, socialism has led to hunger in countries that used to have surplus food to export. Its economic disasters have afflicted virtually every industry. In its Communist version, it killed far more innocent civilians in peacetime than Hitler killed in his death camps during World War II. Nevertheless, for many of those who deal primarily in ideas, socialism remains an attractive idea — in fact, seductive. Its every failure is explained away as due to the inadequacies of particular leaders.” Thomas Sowell
Socialism makes what might seem to be some pretty attractive promises. Such things as equality of status and pay (if any), no unemployment, no homelessness, and universal prosperity. These promises have caused some people to assert that we must keep trying to bring about a socialist society until we succeed. Though it fails everywhere it is tried, they claim ‘it just hasn’t been done right.’ However attractive the concept seems to some, my conclusion is that it simply cannot fulfill those promises..
What am I calling socialism? Lenin said that socialism is the necessary pathway to communism. That means socialist governments will fall across a broad spectrum of forms, but the end goal is the same. That is, collectivization, centralized power (in the name of power distributed to the people), and an economy controlled by a few. Even Lenin, the acknowledged father of Communism could not make it work.
There also seems to be subtle confusion about socialism that conflates the socio-political attributes with the economics. People suggest that socialism is absolutely opposed to capitalism. In an ideological sense, where capitalism represents free markets, this is true, but as an economic system it is false. Whether a society is free-market capitalist, socialist or communist, capital is at the core of economic life and production. The primary difference is whether private individuals own and use the capital assets, or they are owned and operated by the State. As you move along the continuum from free markets to communism, the role of capital and the individual changes dramatically. Essentially, you move from individual autonomy to collectivism. Winston Churchill described this as the transition from human society to an ant colony.
People are wired to be incentivized by improving their situation if they can. They may want to build their own business or earn higher pay, have better health, and more conveniences. In a free-market society, individuals make the choice about what they want to do with their property and resources. The market determines how capital and resources will be used and what goods will be produced to satisfy the demands of the individuals.
In a socialist society the government increasingly decides how capital will be used, and what goods will be available. Wealth created by the worker is controlled and spent by the government. Even in the questionable event that government bureaucrats have good intentions, their spending choices are not likely to be as beneficial to the workers as if the workers made the choices for themselves. The centrally planned economy cannot know enough about what a multitude of individuals want or need, so will most always put scarce resources into less valuable goods, services and infrastructure. Socialism takes away incentives to improve because there is reduced choice of jobs or careers, and no private property, so there is no possibility of creating and sustaining personal wealth. The centralized economic decision making mechanism destroys innovation. If there is no market for new things, or if an individual doesn’t stand to benefit or improve their circumstances, there are no incentive to innovate or improve production.
Socialism makes fatal assumptions about human nature. It is assumed that human nature is not fixed, but is flexible and subject to being re-engineered. It’s also assumed that people will easily and continually sacrifice deeply for the benefit of others. History shows these assumptions to be incorrect. Though you certainly find benevolent people who act generously toward others, they do so by choice, typically after their own needs have been met. They and the rest of humanity, including leaders, operate first of all from self-interest. It seems obvious from the failure of things like Hitler Youth, N. Korean propaganda and the brainwashing of Soviet citizens from cradle to grave that these are immutable human characteristics.
It seems the evidence supports George MacDonald’s assertion “It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellowmen.” The American founders were wise enough to do their best to distribute power rather than concentrate it. When a central government inevitably imposes unpopular ideology, social norms and economic policy on the citizenry of a nation, people naturally resist losing their ability to make choices they think best for themselves. It follows that the government must use coercion and force to make the people cooperate. Historically this leads to persecution, purges and terror. Totalitarianism causes hopelessness, and without the ability to distribute power and provide balanced accountability, the worst of human nature rises to the top of the governing body. We see the results time and again when power is centralized in the way necessary for a socialist government to operate. Corruption, the inability to curb the worst of human nature and the failure to encourage the best of human characteristics rises.
History shows socialism in a poor light. The list of failed socialist states is impressive: The USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, and Chile to name a few. Some of these nations totally failed, others continue to abuse their citizens with harsh policies but happily others have passed on to more free-market-like economies. Sweden is often offered as an example of a successful socialist country. Sweden was one of the most prosperous nations in the world. They adopted a socialist government in the 70s to the 90s and found it unsustainable. Major corporations moved out of the country, the government took on a ponderous welfare and medical system, and an overwhelming pension system. They finally abandoned socialism and reinstated free-markets. Sweden is beginning to prosper again, but is struggling to shed some of the damaging policies that were implemented under socialism.
I have to agree with those who suggest that socialism has never been done right. There has never been a modern society which even remotely resembles the ideal, that I have seen. I contend that it cannot be done right by virtue of the basics of human nature. None of those who continue to advocate for this change would be able to do it any better, no matter how intelligent and virtuous they believe they are. Perhaps 50 years ago the efficacy of socialism might have been in question, but the evidence is in. Socialism is untenable. Can we begin to look at the evidence and give up this fruitless and painful endeavor?
Random Thoughts 