![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyI've been involved ni any number of arguments on socialism, communism, and the redistribution of wealth over the past few weeks, mainly with people still their first blush of idealism (bless 'em) who haven't thought through the implications of their happy ideas. And so, as I've promised to several times, I've started to write down my 'Why I don't like Socialist/Communist economic forms and governments' thoughts.
I've started by getting together some of the more outrageously absurd statements that I've had to argue against and writing my views on them. I'll go from there another time, but I expect this to firmly put the cat amongst the pigeons to start with.
So here we go...
“Communism believes in the fundamental good of human nature and that freed from the sociological effects of grubbing for food and (in some cases) the directives of religion we're basically all good chaps with each others best interests at heart working together for the betterment of the community/species as a whole.”
This load of old nonsense, you may be astonished to know, is actually a quote from a comment on my LJ quite recently. It’s so hopelessly divorced from reality that I thought it needed tackling first. I respond to it with a question; if it gives individuals the greatest credit, why does its fundamental principle involve taking the dispensation of resources and property out of their hands? If Communism/socialism believes that people are so fundamentally good, why does it take away the fruits of individuals’ labour from that individual? Why does it believe that people will not give freely of what they have without a central mechanism to oversee that distribution?
Of course, the answer is that left wing thinkers give the individual the very least credit for disposing of their resources for the betterment of man. It is, in short, a self-declared elite (who oversee the distribution of resources) overseeing the rest of their fellow man whom they believe aren’t to be trusted to live their lives responsibly. A philosophy which I find abhorrent. Give me libertarianism any day.
“From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”
I propose that of all economic systems, in practise only free market capitalism comes close to fulfilling this statement, and even then it comes only halfway; that is, the economy takes peoples abilities and pays what it considers to be a market rate for those abilities. Admittedly, sometimes that market rate may be horrendously skewed one way or another, but the abilities of the individual are their primary trading commodity within the economic system. As the socialist experiments around the world have shown us, the reality of living under those systems is “From each irrespective of their abilities, to each depending on what we can supply”. As we know; Mao put university lecturers to work in the paddy fields, Stalin sent civil engineers to the front lines, and Castro sent anyone capable of building a boat to Miami.
(Speaking of Castro, don’t you think that if the Cubans enjoyed living in a socialist paradise, they’d want to stay there? Just a question…)
“Socialism would work in Cuba if the Americans lifted their trade sanctions!”
Now, perhaps this is just me, but any economic system whose success relies upon it’s sworn enemies trading with it against their will strikes me as fundamentally flawed from inception. People often claim that by not trading with Cuba, the US is dooming it’s citizens to poverty. That argument works just as well the other way around; by enforcing an unworkable governmental and economic system upon it’s citizens, Castro is also dooming them to poverty.
“But Stalin wasn’t a Communist!” (1)
A common cry. For that matter, if you ask a little further, nor were Lenin, Brezhnev, Mao, Kim il Sung, Cauecescu, Marshall Tito, Hoxha…oh, Hell. Nobody who has ever run a country that claimed to be a Communist/ Socialist ‘peoples’ state actually was one. Got that? You see, they couldn’t have been proper lefties because they didn’t make the government work without comprehensive repression of their citizenry and, as we all know, if everyone just held hands and loved each other then a socialist paradise would work. Yeah. Right. And if the moon was made of fuckin’ cheese, then Wallace and Gromit would be millionaires.
This is why I rebel against the idea of yet more socialist state experiments. You see, none of the above people were stupid – in fact they were all incredibly intelligent people, and most of them started off with the very best of intentions. However, their good intentions vanished just as soon as they realised that it was necessary to force people to live in a Communist utopia. ‘”They’ll thank me for this later!”, Stalin must have thought as he starved the Caucasus into submission. “A glorious peoples utopia will ensue where everyone works for the good of everyone else! Now ship those Cossacks off to Siberia, would you?”
There is a serious point here as well; as I’ve noted before, the majority of the people I know with strong left wing views tend to be students and the unemployed. Now, ask yourselves this: if the intellectual elite of nations consisting of billions of people can’t make left wing economic systems work, what the hell makes you think that you can?
Don’t think for one moment that I’m saying that lefty economics cannot work; what I’m saying is that every time we’ve tried them so far, they’ve failed miserably and led to untold suffering of innocents - and the idea of yet more millions suffering and dying in yet more socialist economic experiments until we hit on the right formula kinda leaves me a bit cold. Call me an old softy.
“But Stalin wasn’t a Communist!” (2)
Hitler wasn’t a Nazi. Discuss.
“If the richer portion of society gave up just a little of what they have, it would relieve the poverty of the masses.”
Let’s look at the way things are set up at the moment. The higher waged pay tax at 40%; then they make National Insurance payments on top of that, and then they pay VAT on just about everything they buy at 17.5%. In short, the government takes in taxation approaching a massive 65% of everything that is earned by the vast majority of the wealthier section of society. (The really smart ones move their money offshore and avoid a lot of this tax, and good for them.)
So just where is this ‘just a little of what they have’ supposed to come from – what would be a fair percentage of earnings? Seventy? Eighty? Ninety? All of it?
Of course, the answer is none of the above. The amount of money paid in tax by the citizenry of this country (from the lowest to the highest paid) is many times what is needed to shift the economic demographic of the poorest section upwards dramatically: but it doesn’t do so, and it would continue to fail to do so regardless of the economic system we used. The reason for this is not form of government, or economic system, but human fallibility, waste, greed, and incompetence – and these are things that cannot be educated or voted away. Shifting to a socialist state has, in every example ever on the face of this green earth we have been given, failed miserably to improve the quality of life for the majority of it’s inhabitants (and, before you mention Sweden, the Swedish economy would have collapsed in 1998 were it not for immense loans and currency support from its – rather more capitalist – neighbours), and so when people try and thrust left wing politics at me I instinctively shy away in revulsion.
And this is why I believe that the model of Western, Liberal Democracy that we live under is the finest model of government that humanity has yet invented (and I’d rate Australia as having the best model of all). We live in a world where essential resources are easily in sufficient supply for all; our great limitation is of human ability and willingness - and simply changing economics isn’t going to suddenly make a population of hapless incompetents into dynamic successes. People are venal, inefficient, ineffectual, stupid, and more – and these qualities cannot be rid of by a shift of governmental form. Any system which relies upon central control of resources will be plagued more by these simple human failings than one which replies upon the individual to dispense with those resources that they have access to as they see best – to put it another way, the more steps in the ladder, the more likely that one of those steps will break.
Our current system of economy and government is superior to any of those tried before for the simple fact that it allows us, as individuals, the greatest freedom to dispense with what we have in the way that best suits us. It allows us to place the value upon ourselves that we choose to and strive towards that value without having the needs of a centralised state imposed upon us. And above all, it allows us to choose those rulers who we believe will make our lives least miserable. If people wanted to live in a socialist utopia, they’d have voted one in by now. The fact that the citizenry of this nation repeatedly elect right wing (and that’s Mr. Blair included) governments indicates to me that that’s because they don’t want a socialist utopia. The quicker the various lefties I know get used to the fact that their ideology, whilst pretty, has been weeded out by social Darwinism as effectively as Feudalism and Theocracy have been, the happier I will be.
I've started by getting together some of the more outrageously absurd statements that I've had to argue against and writing my views on them. I'll go from there another time, but I expect this to firmly put the cat amongst the pigeons to start with.
So here we go...
“Communism believes in the fundamental good of human nature and that freed from the sociological effects of grubbing for food and (in some cases) the directives of religion we're basically all good chaps with each others best interests at heart working together for the betterment of the community/species as a whole.”
This load of old nonsense, you may be astonished to know, is actually a quote from a comment on my LJ quite recently. It’s so hopelessly divorced from reality that I thought it needed tackling first. I respond to it with a question; if it gives individuals the greatest credit, why does its fundamental principle involve taking the dispensation of resources and property out of their hands? If Communism/socialism believes that people are so fundamentally good, why does it take away the fruits of individuals’ labour from that individual? Why does it believe that people will not give freely of what they have without a central mechanism to oversee that distribution?
Of course, the answer is that left wing thinkers give the individual the very least credit for disposing of their resources for the betterment of man. It is, in short, a self-declared elite (who oversee the distribution of resources) overseeing the rest of their fellow man whom they believe aren’t to be trusted to live their lives responsibly. A philosophy which I find abhorrent. Give me libertarianism any day.
“From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”
I propose that of all economic systems, in practise only free market capitalism comes close to fulfilling this statement, and even then it comes only halfway; that is, the economy takes peoples abilities and pays what it considers to be a market rate for those abilities. Admittedly, sometimes that market rate may be horrendously skewed one way or another, but the abilities of the individual are their primary trading commodity within the economic system. As the socialist experiments around the world have shown us, the reality of living under those systems is “From each irrespective of their abilities, to each depending on what we can supply”. As we know; Mao put university lecturers to work in the paddy fields, Stalin sent civil engineers to the front lines, and Castro sent anyone capable of building a boat to Miami.
(Speaking of Castro, don’t you think that if the Cubans enjoyed living in a socialist paradise, they’d want to stay there? Just a question…)
“Socialism would work in Cuba if the Americans lifted their trade sanctions!”
Now, perhaps this is just me, but any economic system whose success relies upon it’s sworn enemies trading with it against their will strikes me as fundamentally flawed from inception. People often claim that by not trading with Cuba, the US is dooming it’s citizens to poverty. That argument works just as well the other way around; by enforcing an unworkable governmental and economic system upon it’s citizens, Castro is also dooming them to poverty.
“But Stalin wasn’t a Communist!” (1)
A common cry. For that matter, if you ask a little further, nor were Lenin, Brezhnev, Mao, Kim il Sung, Cauecescu, Marshall Tito, Hoxha…oh, Hell. Nobody who has ever run a country that claimed to be a Communist/ Socialist ‘peoples’ state actually was one. Got that? You see, they couldn’t have been proper lefties because they didn’t make the government work without comprehensive repression of their citizenry and, as we all know, if everyone just held hands and loved each other then a socialist paradise would work. Yeah. Right. And if the moon was made of fuckin’ cheese, then Wallace and Gromit would be millionaires.
This is why I rebel against the idea of yet more socialist state experiments. You see, none of the above people were stupid – in fact they were all incredibly intelligent people, and most of them started off with the very best of intentions. However, their good intentions vanished just as soon as they realised that it was necessary to force people to live in a Communist utopia. ‘”They’ll thank me for this later!”, Stalin must have thought as he starved the Caucasus into submission. “A glorious peoples utopia will ensue where everyone works for the good of everyone else! Now ship those Cossacks off to Siberia, would you?”
There is a serious point here as well; as I’ve noted before, the majority of the people I know with strong left wing views tend to be students and the unemployed. Now, ask yourselves this: if the intellectual elite of nations consisting of billions of people can’t make left wing economic systems work, what the hell makes you think that you can?
Don’t think for one moment that I’m saying that lefty economics cannot work; what I’m saying is that every time we’ve tried them so far, they’ve failed miserably and led to untold suffering of innocents - and the idea of yet more millions suffering and dying in yet more socialist economic experiments until we hit on the right formula kinda leaves me a bit cold. Call me an old softy.
“But Stalin wasn’t a Communist!” (2)
Hitler wasn’t a Nazi. Discuss.
“If the richer portion of society gave up just a little of what they have, it would relieve the poverty of the masses.”
Let’s look at the way things are set up at the moment. The higher waged pay tax at 40%; then they make National Insurance payments on top of that, and then they pay VAT on just about everything they buy at 17.5%. In short, the government takes in taxation approaching a massive 65% of everything that is earned by the vast majority of the wealthier section of society. (The really smart ones move their money offshore and avoid a lot of this tax, and good for them.)
So just where is this ‘just a little of what they have’ supposed to come from – what would be a fair percentage of earnings? Seventy? Eighty? Ninety? All of it?
Of course, the answer is none of the above. The amount of money paid in tax by the citizenry of this country (from the lowest to the highest paid) is many times what is needed to shift the economic demographic of the poorest section upwards dramatically: but it doesn’t do so, and it would continue to fail to do so regardless of the economic system we used. The reason for this is not form of government, or economic system, but human fallibility, waste, greed, and incompetence – and these are things that cannot be educated or voted away. Shifting to a socialist state has, in every example ever on the face of this green earth we have been given, failed miserably to improve the quality of life for the majority of it’s inhabitants (and, before you mention Sweden, the Swedish economy would have collapsed in 1998 were it not for immense loans and currency support from its – rather more capitalist – neighbours), and so when people try and thrust left wing politics at me I instinctively shy away in revulsion.
And this is why I believe that the model of Western, Liberal Democracy that we live under is the finest model of government that humanity has yet invented (and I’d rate Australia as having the best model of all). We live in a world where essential resources are easily in sufficient supply for all; our great limitation is of human ability and willingness - and simply changing economics isn’t going to suddenly make a population of hapless incompetents into dynamic successes. People are venal, inefficient, ineffectual, stupid, and more – and these qualities cannot be rid of by a shift of governmental form. Any system which relies upon central control of resources will be plagued more by these simple human failings than one which replies upon the individual to dispense with those resources that they have access to as they see best – to put it another way, the more steps in the ladder, the more likely that one of those steps will break.
Our current system of economy and government is superior to any of those tried before for the simple fact that it allows us, as individuals, the greatest freedom to dispense with what we have in the way that best suits us. It allows us to place the value upon ourselves that we choose to and strive towards that value without having the needs of a centralised state imposed upon us. And above all, it allows us to choose those rulers who we believe will make our lives least miserable. If people wanted to live in a socialist utopia, they’d have voted one in by now. The fact that the citizenry of this nation repeatedly elect right wing (and that’s Mr. Blair included) governments indicates to me that that’s because they don’t want a socialist utopia. The quicker the various lefties I know get used to the fact that their ideology, whilst pretty, has been weeded out by social Darwinism as effectively as Feudalism and Theocracy have been, the happier I will be.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.
Date: 2002-10-04 12:57 am (UTC)Oh, and Hitler was a National Socialist. Ie. as long as Germany was "correctly" stratified, the rest of the world could like in an oligarchy if it wanted. He fully intended, once the Jews/Gypsies and other stragglers were removed from his empire, to roll this out across the sudetenland of the then Czechoslokavia, Poland, Austria et al. His imperialism only came to a head as a reactionary measure to reduce the growing opposition from the Allied Countries and perceived repression from the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.
The trouble with any method of government, or any lifestyle, is that people will rarely willingly sacrifice what they have in order to support those with less. The reason why Stalinism and Leninism for that matter were self-interested was because they looked at an urban concentration, sending in the Ogpuro and Requisition sqauds to take all the food from the countries to feed the people of the cities. After all, they were more educated and closer with the weapons if a riot got underway. As a result, the people starved. Stailin also instituted a top-heavy triumvirate with Bukharin and some othe rbloke - he refused to relinquish control. However, Stalin also wanted Socialism in One Country. He wanted to make Russia self-sufficient and close its doors, and that was perhaps the wisest thing to do. Any system of government can only work if it's main contacts share the same systems. Witness what happened during Glasnost and Perestroika. Having succumbed to the pressures of Capitalism, seduced by what it could achieve through conquest, imperialism and a second class citizenship, the Free Market flooded Russia, leading to Mafia and Profiteering. People with capital bought up essentials and sold them at whatever price they wanted, just enough so that people could stretch to the cost, but respectable enough to make themselves a profit. 1 in 6 Russians are now predicted to be HIV positive as a result of pursuit of 'luxuries' such as hardcore drugs and prostitution, and the African Countries are doing even worse.
The foundation for all government is Glaucon's Social Construct. People are nice to each other because they don't want people to be nasty to them. Large scale government doesn't work, because the end-decision makers are too far away from the majority of end-users, and as such become a Heideggerian 'Other' something which is opposite to them and not of their flesh.
Re: Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.
Date: 2002-10-04 01:35 am (UTC)Re: Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.
Date: 2002-10-04 01:58 am (UTC)Re: Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.
Date: 2002-10-04 02:24 am (UTC)Thenm we're still agreed; what i object to in government is the natural impulse of a bureaucracvy to believe that it can do everything best, and this is best exemplified by left-wing economic forms. The distribution of property is best left to the owners of said property, leaving governmental bodies to provide those services which are unprofitable through taxation. Im[' getting more political at the moment as we live in a country governed by an executive which ignores this and is seeking increasingly to extend it's authority into the private life of the individual, even if that individual has committed no crime.
Re: Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.
Date: 2002-10-04 08:03 am (UTC)To what you just said, consider that in context of slavery. Slaves were property, and quite good business at that. Social values changed, and that forced government to act. Then through judicious enforcement of the new law, first slave trade was banned by the Crown, then slave ownership (iirc). Most Britons might not have had very many slaves, but Liverpool would be a shadow of itself if it weren't for slave trade profits.
Voluntary libertarianism might have eventually reached the same end, but far more slowly, with huge inconsistent patches, and in the vaccuum of consistent authority probable violence to push each political end (as was seen in the western territories during the US civil war).
Greater human good (especially now that slaves were recognised as humans) was had by consistent across-board action mandated by enforced law than through the alternative patchwork
Re: Mr Burns, I think we can trust the president of Cuba.
Date: 2002-10-04 01:28 pm (UTC)> "Having succumbed to the pressures of Capitalism, seduced by what it could achieve through conquest, imperialism and a second class citizenship, the Free Market flooded Russia, leading to Mafia and Profiteering. People with capital bought up essentials and sold them at whatever price they wanted, just enough so that people could stretch to the cost, but respectable enough to make themselves a profit."
I'd add that those individuals with the capital were pretty much the individuals who had the capital before the fall of communism - the Party members, some generals, and the black marketeers (that is also to say that some individuals were all 3). So the ideology may have changed, but many of the faces did not/have not.