Any cursory search of the political system today will yield the evidence that our culture believes socialism is moral and good and capitalism is evil and bad (Hitler was a 'socialist' by the way- https://tomwoods.com/hitler-fans-are-upset/?omhide=true). And usually the capitalism they define and reprobate is not really a free market, laissez faire economic version of capitalism mainly because of the state guaranteed monopoly on banking and the ensuing corrupt favoring of state chosen businesses. There is no laissez faire banking in our economy. The results of this corruption is actually what our misguided fellow-citizens have confused as capitalism with its corporate bailouts and businesses ‘too big to fail’. (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA )
The antidote to this social ill in their minds is socialism. And what is socialism? Here is one definition- Government ownership of the means of production i.e. nationalized industry; it has evolved into the pursuit of material equality through government income redistribution programs through the welfare state and the progressive income tax. (Thomas J.DiLorenzo quoting Hayek) Also, to destroy the free enterprise system through government demands. (Check out the free literature and materials here- https://mises.org/ )
Since most people are not economically educated (the state educates us, so we expect our education to favor the state) they do not understand that which is seen and that which is unseen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR2mxZX1B9w; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNjAielBBG0 ). They are told that natural disasters are good for the economy because they create a boost in construction. They see the government forcing businesses to use their resources for ‘just wages’ or they see the government paying for a bridge and thereby employing large numbers of people and thus the government is helping these people directly. But they don’t see or think about how the money would be used had the state not forced free property/business owners to use it the way they (the angelic scientific rulers) decided would be best. Instead they rely on their state funded economics education and conclude that businessmen are evil and robbers and exploiters and thus monopolies would immediately emerge in every industry if not for the benevolent government overlords. Where in reality governments create monopolies. And don’t forget about the state supported banks as the proper whipping boy of our economic frustrations.
There are numbers of reasons and volumes of good material about the problems of socialism. For example:
1. The problem of calculation- prices cannot be determined without a market thus blinding every economic decision. (Ludwig von Mises- Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth)
2. Suppression of economic democracy and self-management.(e.g.choosing where you want to shop )
3. Impeding technological advance due to competition being stifled.
4. Reward for risk investment not worth the danger. The belief that effort will not be rewarded destroys incentives.
5. Socialism is enforced equality- either through dictatorship of a strong man or of the majority thus leading society to totalitarianism. (Friedrich Hayek- The Road to Serfdom)
6. Destroys freedom. Some socialism necessarily leads to more when the some inevitably fails.
7. Profit& Loss- By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. (https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-failed/)
8. Socialism takes away property rights - The “tragedy of the commons”- when no one owns it, or all own it, no one really takes care of it. It is quickly exploited and destroyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIOoIPjoiyk
9. Reduced prosperity -countries where the means of production are socialized are not as prosperous as those where the means of production are under private control.
10. Creates slavery- forcing you to work for others, or others to work for you.
But without getting enmeshed in the network of economic principles and more arcane argumentation whereby the ‘state control’ lifeguards (e.g. Paul Krugman) drag the ill-informed into the deep and drown them in sophistry and obfuscation, let’s just focus on basic principles of freedom and property rights. When we speak of God given ‘rights’ we are not referring to a logical axiom (2+2=4; law of contradiction) but rather a moral axiom. Killing and stealing are wrong in a moral sense not necessarily as in a logical sense. We know it is wrong because of our conscience which God has created us with. Rom.2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Our founding fathers were enlightened by Christianity enough to recognize this as noted in the Declaration of Independence- “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
This is self-evident in that everyone can know it is wrong to kill and steal intuitively being taught by his own nature and conscience. Now this isn’t sufficient for those who highly esteem themselves in worldy wisdom and philosophies of deceit (Col.2:8, 1 Cor.1:19-21). Those demanding a logical basis for morality can be contented with the fact that the existence of God is necessary to account for logic and morality and science- but they more likely will refuse. But for now we are focused on these self-evident truths. Men are ‘created equal’ meaning we have an equally lawful access to exercise our rights without being unjustly deprived. (http://www.nlnrac.org/american/bill-of-rights/primary-source-documents/early-state-documents) In Frederic Bastiat’s work entitled ‘The Law’ he expands upon this observation deducing that the purpose of laws in the first place was to defend these rights. The rights didn’t come from the law, they existed before laws or governments and were the basis for laws and governments. Observing also that life, liberty and property are interconnected he points out that our life and talents were God given to develop as we freely decide (pursuit of happiness) and the developing and exercising of our liberty and life generates our property. (pg.2) We can see then that our labor and service or abilities can be traded for other people’s goods and services. The exercising of these lawful rights are seen in the parable of the vineyard that the Lord taught us (Mt.20:1-16). We see a willing agreement to exchange money for labor (v2-7, 13). We see the transfer immediately after the labor is completed (v8) and the money now belonged to the laborers- “didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way…” (v13-14) The Lord then asks the rhetorical question “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” (v15). Yes, it is lawful, obviously. Peter likewise understood the same truth in the book of Acts (4:34-5:9), in the commonly corrupted passage wrested to teach socialism. The disciples freely and willingly sold their property (probably knowing the coming persecution Jn.16:1-2, Ac.8:1 and destruction of Jerusalem- Lk.19:42-44) and gave it to others to help them as they needed (not as they lusted or wickedly refused to work- 2 Thes.3:7-11,1Tim.5:8). Notice what Peter declared under the power of the Holy Ghost- “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” (Ac.5:4). Peter confirmed their property rights- it indeed was lawful for them to do what they will with their own. ‘Thou shalt not steal’ and ‘thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbors’ would presuppose ownership (Ex.20:15,17). Oddly, we even find Social Security in our country inverting God's purpose of the parents laying up for the children and not the reverse (2 Cor.12:14)
Next Bastiat reasons that each person has a right from God to defend his life and liberty and property. The United States 2nd Continental Congress recognized that the divine Author of our existence never “intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive”. Christ noted that the ‘goodman of the house’ “would not have suffered his house to be broken up” by thieves (Mt.24:43). A “strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace” (Lk.11:21) It was common to resist “a thief with swords and staves” (Mt.26:55) which is why Jesus told the disciples to carry a sword (yes, Jesus said this- Lk.22:35-8). Peter, proceeded to try and kill the servant of the high priest failing to perceive the time to kill from the time to heal (Lk.22:49-52, Jer.48:10, Ecc.3:3). (I believe Patrick Henry understood the time in his day- http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm.) But the tacit approval of Christ regarding his disciples being armed here in the garden shows that Peter was not wrong in his motive to defend himself and his friends in general but only in his particular application, for Christ had to die for our sins and his kingdom was not established with the sword (Jn.18:11, 36). While the state would bear the sword, the church collectively would not.
So, for Basitiat the collective organizing of men into a common force to protect their lives and liberty and property is a just structure for government. This likewise is what we see as the purpose of the ‘powers that be’ in Romans 13. God has designed government as “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” for “for he beareth not the sword in vain”. (v4) Paul continued explaining what is behind the law of God is love (v8-9). Killing or coveting or stealing was the opposite of love. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (v10) God is love (1 Jn.4:8, 16) and those acting out in lust compelled by their flesh (Rom.7:7) are destructive to life, liberty and property (the selfish act as God). The powers that be were to execute God's wrath upon evil doers even if as a rudimentary structure (Jdg. ch. 20-21). We were not to avenge (in contrast to defending- Ex.22:1-3) ourselves but rather allow for the wrath of God to be carried out through his ministers (Rom.12:19, 13:1-4); and this is the cause of tribute (13:6-7). This is the purpose for the power given him from above (Jn.19:11); therefore render unto Caesar the things designated by God to him to execute his purpose (Mt.22:21) as the punisher of evildoers (1 Pt.2:13-4).
What happens however in socialism is that things that are not designated to be rendered unto Caesar are confiscated by him. Caesar takes what belongs to you. Ever since Darwin popularized macro-evolution the streams of ‘progressive’ literature view man as becoming better and better. Sin is not understood as the reason for crime and the government officials are seen as Plato’s ‘philosopher kings’ and above personal impulse, or able to be voted out of office should they become a threat. The League of Nations was to be the pillar of global peace after WW1, as man evolved more goodness in himself and his society (that was the hope, until WW1 broke out and then the millions of murders that followed the last century- DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM ). But in this progressive literature socialism was the new purpose of government; the social gospel. Churches even drinking into and being spoiled by this philosophy even to this day. The state has become that “great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else” (Bastiat - http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/2479/Bastiat_TheState1848.pdf) This covetous idea of getting something for nothing or for very little drives those with an evil eye (Mt.20:15). This is the root of socialism, it is covetousness and theft; Bastiat termed it ‘legalized plunder’. If it is wrong for me to forcibly take something from my neighbor then I can elect people who will do it with the legitimacy of the state. Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” The nature of spending or having desires upon ‘other people’s money’ is sin. “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Rom.7:7) You covet and perceive a right to (do you really have a right to someone else’s goods or services? Watch the hypocrisy here-) financial security, job security, wage security, health security, retirement security, educational security and will force others to pay for it; even if children are laying up for other’s parents and not their own (2 Cor.12:14). We are benevolent with other people’s money which we seize from them by the force of the state sword, then flattering ourselves that we are looking out for the poor (as if there is no other way). The government becomes the substitute for God who gives us the power to get wealth (Dt.8:18); salvation we think is by inflation of the supply of money (Federal Reserve system).
The puerile demand ‘just wages’, confusing mercy and justice (do you really have a right to someone else’s goods or services?) and not seeing the economic unseen. If “prices are to be ‘just’ they will be inefficient as a signal of supply and demand, yet that signaling is itself is a highly moral activity. A society needs to know when essentials are scarce so that resources can be appropriately devoted to increasing them. Equally, a society needs to know when a good is in surplus, so that scarce resources can be diverted elsewhere. This transmission of information constitutes the moral value of a free market…” (The Economic Laws of Scientific Research Terence Kealey –pg.45)
The law according to Bastiat becomes so distorted that it becomes the opposite of what it should be. It destroys the rights it was intended to respect and plunders the property it was designed to protect (pg.4-5). We have become so coddled and caressed by the state until we have become too cowardly to act and too corrupted to even look at our situation (Jer.5:1-6). We have loved darkness more than light for our deeds are evil (Jn.3:19). We have forsaken the God of our fathers, the fountain of living water and hewn ourselves our broken cisterns which can hold no water. (Jer.2:13)
Friedrich Hayek's Critique of Socialism
Hayek defines socialism broadly as the conscious direction of social forces to consciously chosen ends. This depends what are the vision of the collective good for society to aim at. Structuring society in a reasonable way is appealing to people. Just as people may individually have goals they pursue. But as Mill taught us that a good society should want to preserve the rights of individual people to pursue their own happiness, their own experiments in living. For people to be free to pursue paths that other people aren't pursuing (e.g. the Wright brothers). Yet if the individuals goals are subjected to the goal of society the individual is now a slave to the social good.
In communism, commissars take your stuff and redistribute it. In socialism bureaucrats take your stuff and redistribute it. In democratic socialism the majority takes your stuff and redistributes it. In each case, if you resist you are arrested or killed. Mill argued that the restriction of liberty was to keep one from harming someone else. But society can't have everything. Security and liberty, or health and prosperity, freedom and order, speech versus slander for example, will all conflict with each other at some point. There must be a balance, yet the 'common good' cannot be defined for everyone. How much would any one person pay to not be sick for their lifetime? How much would they pay for a perfectly safe car? Every person has a different definition of an acceptable risk. There is no universally right answer, it differs for everyone. And if such a formula did exist it would be inextricably complex.
The respect of every ones individual decision for what they would pay for goods and services is what the market does daily. To substitute that for a central planner is too risky. If you make a wrong decision on what the price of apples should be you could end up no one able to afford it or the shelves are empty because everyone buys them up before others. Also, who should be making these decisions for whom? The ethic of respecting everyone individually as a rational free agent is taken from everyone and relegated to state bureaucrats. People thus become a means to an end and not an end in themselves. But who would you like making choices for your life, you, or your mother, or your governor, or president, or perhaps a world council? You care about you more than anyone else does. No one person can be an expert on everything, knowledge is distributive and decentralized. A pencil for example is very complicated to construct although it is a simple item. No one person could make one from scratch.
What makes sense for one person does not make sense for everyone as a whole. In the tragedy of the commons, shepherds would graze their sheep in the common lands before their own land resulting in the devastation of the common land. Likewise incentives to self interest when applied to bureaucrats result in great waste. This experience converted Tom Sowell from Marxism to capitalism. When he discovered that the government agency he worked for had no desire to fix the problem they were created to fix, and thus work themselves out of a job.
In socialism the worst people always rise to the top at deciding who gets his goods taken to be distributed to others needs. Hayek says that it's not just that everyone rises to the level of his incompetence, where he can't do better than he is able. But in his estimation it is worse than that. If you imagine an absence of accountability will result in the worst behavior. And those people who most potently propel the social goal will most effectively negate individualism. The beginning of the social goal to help the individual weak will ultimately be swallowed up in the end with a disregard for the individual for the collective. And to bemoan the fact that the best people have never been able to attempt to employ socialism properly is to fail to understand that the best people could never rise to that position in that structure. The nice people are trampled on by the strongest in their quest to implement societies goal. Individuals are completely disregarded for the collective by the strongest in pursuit of the goal; and so there will be screams of the individual in place of his conflicting opinion. The enforcers of societies goal will feel their superiority to the individuals of society since they are in that position to enforce.
Another problem is that the more the state plans the harder it is for individuals to plan. The state plans would not be predictable by each individual and they couldn't make rational decisions assessing their own business with other individuals. The state plans destroy the ability for the individual to make rational decisions for themselves because the cannot predict societies overall decisions, and are robbed of market information necessary for their individual decisions.
Jordan B Peterson on "But That Wasn't Real Communism, Socialism, or Marxism!"
Comments