Strength and Weakness of Socialism
by Manfred F. Schieder

“Greedy capitalists obtain their money from the market. Good socialists steal it.”
(David D. Friedman)

   Socialism, in all its different manifestations, has an almost magical attraction for the majority of mankind, since it claims to be based on a moral ground as well as to offer security, while it promotes the belief that it can eliminate envy. Even the wealthy, attached to the same moral basis as Socialism, defend it since they consider it to be a "just" system, while they themselves are ashamed of the wealth they own. Even most of those who defend Capitalism recognize that Socialism is the more honorable and, thus, better system, since it is based on a moral standpoint.

   These three points (Morality, Security and the elimination of envy) are the apparently strong columns which support the development of Socialism. Whether it reaches its position of power by violent or peaceful means has no significance in this context, however damaging this can be for the general population.

   Even where it opposes religions, which Marx termed "the people's opium", do the fundamental ideas and aims of Socialism originate from the religious scriptures of all kind, specifically from what the Jewish-Christian tradition and their derivates, for example the Quran, preach as their particular morality. The religions themselves have recognized this since long, of course, which allowed them to create their own political parties, such as the Christian Democrats, the Christian Socialists, etc. while, at the same time, they provided the remaining political parties, including the so-called pro-capitalistic ones, the required “moral” support.

   "God's" command to love your neighbor as yourself is the "moral" origin of the command to live for your next of kin, which, thus, becomes the only justification for one's own existence. This is Socialism’s starting point. Of course does this standpoint contain a dualism, as everybody considers himself to be the "next of kin" of everyone else which, since all the others are numerically many more than oneself, instigates the belief that "all those others" are there to support oneself, whereby Socialism is the mechanism that guides all this help to one's own doorstep. In the process, the other side of the coin is forgotten, that it is also oneself who must support everybody else. Socialism "organizes" this by constantly increasing all taxes in accordance with the money required or, as it happens with Communism, by replacing all money with rationing cards.

   Also the following is totally forgotten: the fact that socialism requires for all these distribution organisms and institutions an enormous quantity of bureaucrats that only consume without supplying anything productive themselves. Moreover, since Socialism has no mechanism to insure productive renewals and inventions, which originate from individuals who expect to gain from their inventive efforts a benefit, this in itself being anathema for Socialism – Marx called it added value – the point of the system's crash appears at the very beginning of its implementation. Most of the times, after the resulting bankruptcy, the same system will be established again, though by another name. The losses resulting from not produced goods as well as the misery and deaths "produced" are not taken into consideration. For Socialism people is consumable material (remember the mega murders of history) and the not produced goods cannot be taken into any consideration, precisely because they have never been produced. This shows that the "human friendliness", about which Socialism brags so much about, is totally inexistent.

   The second column, closely related to the first one, is the personal desire for protection and security. This demand cannot be fulfilled under any circumstance, but Socialism says that it has the required formula to reach the wanted goal, which consists of a "just" distribution of what is available – called "Social Justice" – through the organization of care for the population. The already mentioned bureaucracy as well as the dictatorship required to apply this "just" distribution are the mechanisms applied to reach this fantasized goal. For this the individual must renounce to his independence and liberty (of course, Socialism does not mention this) and submit himself to the State as a slave. Everything is dictated and controlled, wages and salaries are regulated by law or replaced by rationing cards and production is subject to what the bureaucrats consider must be promoted or restrained, all this under the pretense of defending and sheltering the interests of the "general population". Expenses rise against incomes and this, just as what has already been indicated for the first column of the “system”, determines its collapse, a collapse that is only delayed by the generosity of those countries where a certain amount of a capitalistic form of society already exists. The Soviet Union and other such countries are examples of it, since they were and still are supported by the loans and gifts provided by the "capitalist" countries that they despise so much. This is also an excellent opportunity for the rulers to enrich themselves, a fact carefully hidden from the population.

   Since both nature and circumstances inhibit a total security, each individual can obtain a relative security by saving part of his income or through careful investments that also helps to increase production. This, however, can only be attained within a capitalistic type of society, where everybody has to care for his own and, through personal decision and engagement, his loved one’s wellbeing.

The third column is based on human psychology, but must also be considered as a weakness. However, this column, envy, is at the same time the main pillar of Socialism. Envy is the feeling of malicious discontent and jealousy against another one's success and/or accomplishments. Since Socialism seduces all those who cannot personally produce anything positive and hate all those that have reached success, does envy govern everything Socialism does. Its goal is the destruction of all who are successful, by equalizing everybody downwards. The envious desire of taking from the successful their well earned wellbeing, results, finally, in the poverty of all, since progress is forbidden.

   As many people prefer to own less as long as others are also kept in this same position, does Socialism have a strong appeal to every envious person. This, however, does not allow to climb the ladder to wellbeing, but leads to the abyss. Thus does this column also decide the constant defeat of Socialism as soon as it reaches power, for the promotion of the incapable or unwilling blocks the very requirements for its own furtherance. It is only by allowing the operation of certain capitalistic undertakings that the unavoidable outcome of failure can be delayed. Therefore it should be the direct and permanent commitment of Capitalism not to help its natural foe nor to come to its assistance, as this would then allow the general population to notice that Socialism and everything that relates to it, as well as what they defend has, both philosophically and psychologically, only the defeat of mankind as its goal.

   I could add here many more arguments and even go much deeper into this subject to evidence in detail the existing and ongoing deterioration of the human society, but the foregoing provides sufficient arguments to show that the wrong moral starting point (Altruism, that is: living for others), the desire for shelter and security and the feeling of envy are not the correct basis to obtain the general wellbeing of the human population.

   Could it then be that this goal can be accomplished by applying exactly the opposite of these false values? Could the goal be reached through rational egoism, risk taking and the rejection of envy, all of which result directly in the endorsement of one's own life? This is really the correct road, but thousands of years had to pass to reach this conclusion. All the guiding lines constructed by philosophies and religions had to be abdicated. In the course of reasoning, the correct sequence of thoughts was deduced from reality and the existing dichotomy of matter and spirit was eliminated, both parts then being united. This achievement required the intellectual capacities of philosopher Ayn Rand. Her arguments can be followed in her own writings.

   What must be added is the fact that the existing situation can only be changed once the moral code, as deduced by Ayn Rand and which correctly corresponds to a society where poverty is no virtue but work and the productive and peaceful effort is, has been established. This, however, will require that even those defenders of personal liberty who still adhere to religious beliefs, leave their position, for it is contradictory in itself and, thus, false. Religions sustain poverty as a virtue while liberalism condemns it as a flaw. Religions despise wealth as well as the personal productive effort, while the promoters of Capitalism defend it as virtues. This contradiction results from the premise of trying to defend simultaneously opposing terms and purposes, for while they preach personal freedom they adhere to submission to a “superior being”. Correcting this anachronism requires a personal decision based on recognizing truth. While the contradiction is sustained, these types of defenders of private liberty will do a bad service to the promotion of liberalism and generally will only reap defeat in every effort to conquer new adherents to the cause of liberty.

   Only Objectivists, as atheists and liberals, hold the correct attitude. They are the only ones who embrace integrity and who will reach success in the still scantly available opportunities to sow the social and economic guiding lines that characterize the benefits and the cornucopia of Capitalism.

Discuss this Article (1 message)