SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM
Updated 3-16-07
First,
let's define the two terms. A lot of people wonder what Socialism and Communism
are exactly; or wonder about the real difference between the two. They are not
the same but are related to each other. Socialism is Communism's little brother.
Socialism: Commonly known as the "Welfare State." Private ownership is still the law of the land, but regulations and entitlement programs dictate more and more how the products of the private sector are to be distributed. In Socialism, the concept of Individual Rights becomes despised. The people start to think of themselves as having seprate "group" identities, and vote in blocks so that the government will solve their "special interest" problems. There is less and less emphasis on the power of individual to lift himself or his community up. Sound familiar?
In Socialism, the people empower the government to a point where Communism is a logical end result. Socialism - like Communism - seeks the subordination of individual rights, welfare, and responsibilities in favor of the "common good." Modern examples of Socialist thinking include all the talk about "universal," government managed health care; the welfare system of entitlements; and the American Democratic Party. The political parties in Europe that espouse similar goals usually employ the term "socialist" in the name of their party.
Communism: Outright state ownership of all property and or industry. Individuals perform all work for the "common good" and all products are (theoretically) distributed equally amongst the citizens by the government - as opposed to being allowed to benefit the families of the producers of the products. Thus the terms "commune" and "communal living."
Human nature: The Motivations Behind Socialism and Communism
Questions: Imagine yourself in the following scenarios:
1). You are jogging in a public park, and are quickly and easily passed by a fleet-footed elite athlete. How do you feel about that?
2). You struggle to make B's and C's in school. The woman next to you seems to always have intelligent answers to the teacher's questions, and usually makes A's. How do you feel about her?
3). You are a woman watching a beauty pageant or a Ms. Fitness competition. What do you think about the women in the competition?
4). You take a new route home through a posh neighborhood and see a man in a Ferrari pulling into the seven car garage of his twelve thousand foot mansion. How do you feel about him?
If you are like most people, every scenario above would inspire you to grumble about how such people "think they're so much better than you;" and you will do what you can to tear down such people in your mind. The man with the Ferrari, for example, is "compensating" rather than simply enjoying something he can afford through hard work. But you choose - for whatever reason - not to admire that. You assume that he got the things he has by cheating somebody. How often have you heard - or maybe said - such a thing?
If you are a part of the minority of people who could actually look at such people and be inspired to learn what it took to get them to that point, then you are probably very successful yourself at what you do; and have a healthy respect for excellence, discipline, competition, and hard work. In short, you are probably a Capitalist. But like I said, you are in the minority...by a wide margin. Most people will succumb to mere adolescent envy when confronted with excellence in anything.
Class Envy
In financial matters, the envy I talked about above is "class envy." Most people will feel a sense of "it's not fair" when confronted with someone who possesses or has accomplished more than they have. They will say of the family in the big house at the end of the street "they don't NEED all of that square footage." But be careful. Think about what it means to grouse about people who have more than they need. After all, we are not living in a sustenance society of hunter-gatherers living in caves just to keep the rain off our heads. We all live with more than we need...and why not? Why not do the utmost to provide for our families as best we can? Don't we all want the best for our loved ones? And yes....for ourselves too.
How Class Envy Leads to Socialism and Communism
To grouse about someone who has "more than they need" is to suggest that there should be a limit to how successful a person should be allowed to become. That is clearly repressive after a cursory amount of thought on the subject. After all, what is meant by "allowed?" In the end, any restrictions will come down from the government. And when the government starts placing such limits on people, telling the prosperous that they will not get to keep all the fruits of their own labor but must divide it and parcel it out to people who have done nothing to EARN it, you get Socialism.
You Can Not Have Freedom Without Protecting Private Property Rights
There can be no freedom if you wonder whether or not the government will step in at some point and start taking property from you. The politico-speech word for this among modern politicians is "income redistribution." Don't be fooled. All in the world that is is government taking from someone who earned what they have and giving it to someone who didn't.
A government that starts down this path, as we are seeing now in the American Democratic Party, Communism is the logical end result. A government that does not respect private property will eventually decide that no one is entitled to any of the fruits of their own labor, and government will take your business from you and make it a state-owned enterprise. This is called "Nationalizing" a company or industry. When that happens on a wide scale, you have Communism.
Why
Communist Governments are Always Repressive
First, simply because the government is taking from the people - taking the private enterprise that provides prosperity for families. But more than that, once you remove a person's financial motivations to produce, you remove the incentive people have to work and contribute to society. At that point, the only other motivation a government can use to induce the people to produce the things a society needs is...force. That is why ALL Communist societies become repressive and brutal. Forced labor camps and oppressive productivity quotas are universal in any Communist society.
Self Interest Motivates the Worker to Produce
Contrary to what the idealist believes, people do not work just to "self-actualize," or to be altruistic. People work in order to provide goods for themselves and their families. With Communism, people are compensated the same whether they are a janitor with two hours of job training, or a medical doctor. I have Romanian friends who talk about such days under Communism. They tell me how everyone at the office did as little as they had to to stay out of trouble. Hardly a recipe for national or even personal prosperity. Why would citizens in such a country expend the effort it takes to do something difficult for a livelihood when doing something easy will yield the same results? So it is at this point that a government has to use force to motivate their citizens to do the work that it necessary for the society to function. And that is how that government becomes brutal.
Money is Society's Way of Compensating Someone for their Contributions
Different People Have Different Capabilities, and are Compensated Accordingly. But to some people it seems "unfair" that some "have" when others "have less." Often you get politicians who play on this throwback to our childhood playground jealousies and foment discontent among the "working class."
The "Working Class"
Let's talk about the "working class" for a moment. The modern connotation of that label conjures up images of a blue collar worker with his name on his shirt. But why is such a person called "working class" when a doctor or business owner is not. We all know the dedication - and the sixty-plus hour work weeks - it takes to achieve such things, so why do we tolerate politicians who try to tell us that such people are not among the "working" class?
Such politicians only use these terms so that they can divide us and create sympathetic voters. They promise the "underdog" entitlements and other government programs that will be paid to them if they will elect said politician. And, of course, those entitlements have to come from money made by someone. That has to come from the productive among us. The problem here is that this is an extra burden on people who are already working harder than the rest of us - and becomes a disincentive to start new businesses...and that is bad for all of us.
It's Hard for a Nation to Stay Free
Once a nation breaks free from oppression and safeguards freedom, some people will make better use of that freedom than others because different people have different degrees of talent and work ethic. Thus, some people will be more prosperous than others. This is natural, and there is nothing sinister in it. But the Socialism / Communism ideology sees "disparity" in this truism, and desires to bring everyone "DOWN" to the same level. All of this is - somehow - supposed to be more "fair." Has it ever occurred to you that it might be better for everyone if people looked "UP" at a higher level instead? But of course, any attempt to lift oneself up means work, discipline, and sound judgment. Only the minority of people employ such qualities, and that is why they are exceptional. It's far easier to pull such people down instead of improve oneself, isn't it?
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
--Winston Churchill
A nation that tries to accomplish equality for everyone must try to do so through laws and taxes. Such a society will always become a second or third world society before it resorts to brutality and collapses, because
"For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill
The socialist politician uses class envy to foment discontent among what he would call "the working class." The socialist tells the working class that the man with the big house at the end of the street is taking too big a share of the pie - as if there is only so much pie to go around. The socialist fails to consider that the man with the big house got that house for his family through preparation, discipline, and hard work. The socialist further fails to consider that the hard work and industriousness of men like the one with the big house is what has provided the jobs for the working class for whom the socialist claims to be fighting. To attempt to "strike a blow for the regular guy" against the fat cat captain of industry is to literally "bite the hands that feed everyone." Five minutes of considered thought on the subject reveals this to be true.
"Self Interest" is Not the Same Thing as "Greed"
To confuse the two is like confusing love for lust. They seem similar, but only to the ignorant. A teenager confuses lust for love all the time, but a more mature person knows the difference. Similarly, most people are adolescent in their approach to politics and economics, so they remain capable of yielding to class envy, and perpetuating the destructive Socialist / Communist cycle because they just don't know any better. Like anything, political and economic wisdom comes with education. Knowing how to intelligently decipher each is not at all innate, as seems to be assumed by most people in the general public.
Self interest only becomes greed when you step on others to get what you have. We have laws against that, and we do what we can to enforce fair trading laws. Even the fuss over Enron is quickly put into perspective when one considers that the major perpetrators are now serving very long prison sentences for their fraud.
Does fraud happen? Of course. But we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Capitalist societies enjoy the highest standards of living in history - which is something from which we all benefit. Even the poor in a capitalist society live better than the upper middle class anywhere else in the world. I have been in the homes of wealthy Kenyans, Afghans, and others...and a flat in an American slum is a palace by comparison. If you are looking for a perfect, no-down-side solution to economic ills, good luck with that.
Self-interest simply means that one does work in order to provide for one's family. The fact that such a person is not motivated to provide for his entire street is not selfish. It is simply that such a person takes the radical view that the various providers in those other households are responsible for themselves - and takes the flattering view that they are capable. Mature people are okay with being responsible for themselves. That is, in fact, the main barometer any parent uses to determine whether their child has grown beyond adolescence. To tell the people who never learn to be self sufficient that they should expect entitlements from the government to take care of them is to be an enabler for unhealthy and slack behavior.
Entitlements are Not Compassionate - and Are Often Racist
Further, it is not even compassionate to offer entitlements to the poor. To do so sends a clear message that they are inferior and not capable of taking care of themselves. It enables them the same way giving money to a dead beat cousin does. You would probably say that it is the "best thing for him" if your uncle cuts off that dead beat cousin so he will learn to "fend for himself." Societies are no different. Most people who champion the poor try to tell the rest of us that the poor "need" something from us. What is it about the poor exactly that makes them so needy? Are they less evolved than the rest of us? Are they less intelligent? To suggest that they are any less capable than the rest of us is insulting to them, and is even racist when applied to a minority group - as is so often the case today. Anyone who says such a thing cannot truly be an advocate for the poor or of minorities. In my book, a true advocate tells a person that "you can." Yes, you have to follow that up with "how" you can, but sending that "can do" message does not - indeed can not - start with enabling behaviors that perpetuate envy and dependence. That's not a Republican statement - or even a Conservative statement. Don't block the common sense of that statement with us-vs.-them pettiness. That's another common pitfall of society. For more on that, click here.
Envy and Entitlements Lead to the Communist and Socialist Thinking That Leads to Ruin
"You cannot built up the weak by pulling down the strong." - - Calvin Coolidge
When the poor are exempted from producing, and are allowed to live off the labor of others, somebody has to take up the slack. That's where the looting of the prosperous comes in. The prosperous are forced to "contribute their fair share" even though they are already the very engines of industry. And the rich are the engines of charity too, of course! I mean, have you ever thought about how much money is raised from poor people? But that's another article.
In the Socialist and Communist state, the wealthy are forced to give more and more through ever more burdensome taxes so that the increasingly welfare-oriented government can "provide for" the "underprivileged." But those taxes are a drain on productivity that will slow down the economic engine for everyone. Yet politicians are more than happy to use this tactic to "buy votes." When this happens, the people have empowered government. Anytime you give the government power, it will become more oppressive.
There are more people who vote to "get" from the treasury than there are people to put into it, and the politicians will favor the masses. This cycle cannot sustain forever, and will lead to collapse.
This
is one of my favorite quotes about
the trap of
democracy...from Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United
States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about
the fall of the Athenian Republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist
until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public
treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a
democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to
spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to
complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from
dependency back to bondage."
THAT pattern, borne out again and again throughout history - doomed to repetition because the undereducated populace fails to recognize the warning signs - is Socialism / Communism in a nutshell.
