Fighting zombies
Thursday, September 20, 2012
When the Wall fell most of us thought that, even if history had not ended, Socialism was dead. Those of us who went to the East to build on the ruins wrought by decades of it little thought it still had legs. Its central thesis - that centralised economic planning would produce fairer and more effective results than the operation of market forces - had been tested to destruction. My grandfather's trucking business was run better by himself and his brothers than it ever was by British Road Services, when expropriated by a British Socialist government.
More than half of mankind experienced socialism in the twentieth century. Almost all of us experienced some less full-blooded implementations than were tried behind the Berlin Wall. There has never been a greater experiment in all human history and It led to the deaths of millions and the impoverishment of billions. If ever an idea was ready for the dustbin of history, surely this one was? Yet it marches on. A zombie ideology; dead but still a threat.
I can see that it's seductive. As we face the usual struggle in competition with others to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and those we love, of course we dream of a better, kinder, more efficient world. Looking back on a thirty year career, I know that much of my effort was misdirected, unrewarded or subverted to serve the goals of others. I could have taken care of my family as well with half or less of the effort, had I only known in advance what would work and what wouldn't. Yet I also know that I was very lucky. I was able to make myself financially independent (subject always to the predatory actions of future governments). Others work just as hard and never reach that goal. How unfair is that?
Sure, the alternative has been tried before with dire results, but I can see why some think it's worth another go. The wisdom of the young Paul Simon applies, as so often. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Socialism is seductive not because it's true, but because so many want it to be true.
Then there are those for whom it really does lead to the land of milk and honey. The John Prescotts of this world; talentless, lazy and greedy. Honest labour in the competitive market would never make them rich or powerful, but dishonest adherence to Labour just might. And our John, repulsive though the man is, is by no means the worst. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler and thousands of others, including the employees of all trade unions, leftist think tanks, equality commissions, state broadcasters and most of Western academia have lived parasitically on those who dream of a gentler life than that offered by the cruel gods of the market. Not to mention the hypocrites writing for The Guardian from their Tuscan villas.
They do so, without exception, by promoting hatred of "the other". For National Socialists, other races and for International Socialists, other classes. Socialism is a hate doctrine, which partly accounts for its success. Your misfortunes and failures are the fault of wicked "others" and nothing really to do with you. This appeals to the darker vices that grow in those who begin with the entry vice of envy. Like the poor, misguided father of a murdered WPC in Manchester crying for policemen to be able to "shoot people on sight", humans crave a dark and vengeful deliverer from evil. The Old Testament God, Dirty Harry or the Dark Knight of Gotham all speak to the same wicked urge from the dark recesses of the human soul as Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
This hypocrisy is why one unguarded remark by an American Conservative about prioritising the interests of the productive over the rest makes him unelectable, whereas the consistent hypocrisy of wealthy "socialists" passes off as the merest aberration. Not just old "two Jags" but the likes of Diane Abbott, for whose children the crap schools she foists on others are not nearly good enough. Or Tony Blair. Working for the businesses built by the great bandit clans of Morgan and Rockefeller seems to give rise to no more socialist qualms in him than did the abduction, rape and murder of the daughters of Moscow workers in Beria. Why is this behaviour so consistent in those who denounce the avarice of those driven by market forces? Could it be, perhaps, because they seek power for their own greedy ends, rather than - as advertised - for the greater good? At university Blair dreamed qualmlessly of wealth and fame as a rock star. Lacking the talent he went in for "show business for ugly people" instead.
There is an undoubted synergy between the masses' dreams of an uncompetitive existence and their socialist leaders' dreams of something similar at their expense. All this may account for Socialism's survival but not, I think for its political success. That, I will try to account for in another post soon.
Socialism, just as you say is a "better" system for some people in some ways. If a person is poor it can improve their lot.
But after a little while, given a chance, the "deserving poor" mostly lift themselves up. That is What lies at the heart of the "American Dream". It does not need much more than an equal chance at things like education, training and appernticeships, honest exams, a chance to prosper without a boot on a person's neck.
The trouble is with a little socialism after a while you end up with I hate to say it... parasites... Taking advantage and excusing themselves from making any good contribution to society.
The dark side of socialism is a necesary envey, of hate figures, Jews, Bankers, and so on. Class hatered and if there are not clear classes they need to be made. But they must always be some sort of appearing more fortunate minority.
Socialism seems maybe like a disease, society can't tolerate anything more than the mildest infection. It killed the Soviet Union in the end. I couldn't really say China is communist any more, maybe more Oligarky + Capitalism pretending.
The West has had this nasty infection for a time now, like ME.
Soialism sounds ok in theory, if you don't look too close or if you forget. I guess it will keep appearing in one way or another.
What did your namesake say? "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." but I figure, like neglegting roof repairs, not paying it is even more uncomfortable and expensive in the end.
Posted by: Moggsy | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Socialism, just as you say is a "better" system for some people in some ways. If a person is poor it can improve their lot.
But after a little while, given a chance, the "deserving poor" mostly lift themselves up. That is What lies at the heart of the "American Dream". It does not need much more than an equal chance at things like education, training and appernticeships, honest exams, a chance to prosper without a boot on a person's neck.
The trouble is with a little socialism after a while you end up with I hate to say it... parasites... Taking advantage and excusing themselves from making any good contribution to society.
The dark side of socialism is a necesary envey, of hate figures, Jews, Bankers, and so on. Class hatered and if there are not clear classes they need to be made. But they must always be some sort of appearing more fortunate minority.
Socialism seems maybe like a disease, society can't tolerate anything more than the mildest infection. It killed the Soviet Union in the end. I couldn't really say China is communist any more, maybe more Oligarky + Capitalism pretending.
The West has had this nasty infection for a time now, like ME.
Soialism sounds ok in theory, if you don't look too close or if you forget. I guess it will keep appearing in one way or another.
What did your namesake say? "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." but I figure, like neglegting roof repairs, not paying it is even more uncomfortable and expensive in the end.
Posted by: Moggsy | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM
What you seem to miss entirely is that the primary function of markets is not to enable profit but to minimize it. That is why they are so efficient. Free markets stop the wealthy from becoming the idle rich.
Ebay is a fine example, the barriers to entry are so weak that people prepared to make small margins thrive at the expense of larger operations.
"What will people be prepared trade in order to eat? Their bodies?" - How about their labour, their knowlege, their time, their goods, their skills, their ideas, their creativity, their services, their talents. It must be depressing to live in your mind.
Posted by: Diogenes | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 05:20 AM
The market for food would be the same as it currently is, and I think it's safe to say with more variety and lower prices due to the lack of regulation.
Healthcare would probably change as if individuals pay for their own insurance they've got a far greater incentive to look after themselves.
If someone can't afford them? There's charity and friendly societies for starters. There were plenty of both (and volunteer hospitals) before the government realised how important a welfare system was for both control and propaganda.
"By the way, if the market isn't an institution, or collection of them, what is it?"
I don't think either word does justice to the amount of options possible in a market. A market isn't a thing, it's just people trading stuff, it's really a description of a concept.
"The two things are not related. Can't you see that "Hitler killed the Jews, so lets get rid of public healthcare" doesn't make much sense?"
I wasn't saying that, I was trying to make the point I believe they've got their priorities messed up. We should get rid of public healthcare simply because it's funded by theft.
"I agree that attacking the rich is vile. And stupid."
"I guess that's ok, because they have a choice between starvation and the sweaty sexual abuse of rich men."
"But so is refusing to acknowledge the right of the poor to live as something other than the playthings of those with money."
What gives someone the right to take someone else's property? And why keep bringing it down to a sexual level?
We had voluntary systems for taking care of the poor until the government got involved so it could better control people.
The result of state intervention: a truly disgraceful school system... hospitals people die in because they can't be bothered to keep them clean... prisoners looked after better than the elderly... a welfare trap where some people are better off not working... council housing meaning people won't move to find work...
These are just off the top of my head and that's ignoring other areas of regulation that hurt the poor such as minimum wage.
The government doesn't help these people, it doesn't give a shit about them. They simply provide it with a means to try and justify itself.
Posted by: Andrew | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 02:32 AM
'No, a market is simply trading stuff. When trades are voluntary, all parties benefit as they're exchanging something for something they value more."
How about food, healthcare? What will people be prepared trade in order to eat? Their bodies?
I guess that's ok, because they have a choice between starvation and the sweaty sexual abuse of rich men.
If it comes to that for me, you can forget about the non-agression principle.
By the way, if the market isn't an institution, or collection of them, what is it?
"And really, what is it with the rich? Governments the world over commit atrocity after atrocity, year after year, decade after decade, century after fucking century. And all the left do is cheer-lead for even more government, while attacking people with more money than themselves. It's beyond pathetic, it's vile."
The two things are not related. Can't you see that "Hitler killed the Jews, so lets get rid of public healthcare" doesn't make much sense?
I agree that attacking the rich is vile. And stupid. But so is refusing to acknowledge the right of the poor to live as something other than the playthings of those with money.
Posted by: Mark | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 01:06 AM
"In a free society, every person's power must be limited to some extent."
Yes, a respect for property rights and the non-aggression principle just about cover this.
"But the market is simply the institution by which those with money get what they want."
No, a market is simply trading stuff. When trades are voluntary, all parties benefit as they're exchanging something for something they value more.
"By refusing to accept limitations to this you create totalitarianism, complete with "divine right" justifications for the rich."
Libertarians are not refusing to accept limitations, I stated them above.
And really, what is it with the rich? Governments the world over commit atrocity after atrocity, year after year, decade after decade, century after fucking century. And all the left do is cheer-lead for even more government, while attacking people with more money than themselves. It's beyond pathetic, it's vile.
"Quite frankly it is an insult to the term "liberty"."
Quite frankly what is an insult is trying to warp the meaning of liberty from being free to being free to do what you're told.
Posted by: Andrew | Monday, September 24, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Indeed.
But if you insist (as Tom does) that we cannot create institutions which would restrict the power of the rich, we have exactly the same problem as a government unaccountable to the rule of law.
In a free society, every person's power must be limited to some extent. Tom believes that institutions are unimportant, that the operation of each individual's will, expressed in the market is the best basis for society. But the market is simply the institution by which those with money get what they want．By refusing to accept limitations to this you create totalitarianism, complete with "divine right" justifications for the rich.
Quite frankly it is an insult to the term "liberty".
Posted by: Mark | Monday, September 24, 2012 at 06:16 PM
"Even better, perhaps we could imagine a better system for the future, preferably one that doesn't give rich old men's gold absolute precedence over everyone elses lives."
"We" have, that's what Tom's blog's all about:
Libertarianism - keeping the state to the absolute minimum (or my preference of no state at all).
As you note "imperialistic slave regimes" were terrible; the more freedom we've gained, the more our lives improve and the faster progress becomes.
So the next phase should be to scrap the small, elite of "rich old men" who call themselves the government and hold a monopoly of violence and land over everyone else.
“The State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large.” Murray Rothbard, The Ethics Of Liberty.
Posted by: Andrew | Monday, September 24, 2012 at 05:46 PM
Link of dubious relevance.
The ultimate precursor of modern socialism is ancient society. Every society.
The Spartans aimed to maintain social bonds to enable them to continue to opress helots. Plato decided that was a nifty idea. But the fact that social bonds are neccesary within an oppressive elite doesn't mean that aiming for universal socialism is oppressive.
Posted by: Mark | Monday, September 24, 2012 at 04:44 PM
If you are against social democracy, what are you for Antisthenes?
Posted by: Mark | Monday, September 24, 2012 at 04:16 PM
What is it that you want the unemployed to do?
Posted by: Mark | Monday, September 24, 2012 at 04:13 PM
tomsmith, it may be well written, but unfortunately it is also nonsense.
The whole piece is based upon a bizarre dichotomy between socialist and free market, where it is insinuated that the modern, successful democratic nations of Britain, France, Japan, America...etc are equivilant to the mass murder regimes of Nazi Germany and Pol Pot.
On the other side we have the imaginary free market utopia, which by Tom's own admission doesn't exist.
Whoopie.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to contrast imperialistic slave regimes, which have caused great misery and killed millions in every century (including the last), to free democratic ones which have held up a reasonably good record over the last 70 odd years...?
Even better, perhaps we could imagine a better system for the future, preferably one that doesn't give rich old men's gold absolute precedence over everyone elses lives.
Posted by: Mark | Monday, September 24, 2012 at 03:59 PM
The poor yearn to live in a socialist state, until they actually live in a socialist state and find that the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful whilst the poor stay poor.
Posted by: Bill D'Sarse | Sunday, September 23, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Very well written. Look forward to the next part
Posted by: tomsmith | Friday, September 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Quite. The dream of owt for nowt is as probably as old as humanity itself. i imagine that for every diligent hunter and gatherer there would have been some idler demanding a share because it wasn't fair that he couldn't run as fast, throw a spear as far or carry as many berries. But the Marxist "scientific" version of laziness greed and armed robbery has had a global trial, whereas other types were only attempted in the odd Utopian community.
Posted by: Tom | Friday, September 21, 2012 at 06:27 AM
It must be said; the socialism of the 19th and 20th centuries did not spring from nowhere. The precursors can be found all the way back to Sparta.
I recently read a very interesting essay by Bastiat, which was severely critical of the classical education for inculcating harmful ideas into French culture. As someone who has read and enjoyed those naughty books by Livy and gang, he certainly has a point. They talk of liberty, but it is the liberty of a slave-owning warrior caste, which lives by rapine and plunder. It's worth a read ...
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss9.html
Posted by: Richard Carey | Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM
How true. For nearly seven decades social democracy, which is only socialism through the back door, has been eating away at the West's societies and in the process is destroying them socially and economically. I believe that it has now reached the point that it will destroy those societies completely. The current recessions and the crises that have evolved from them is not of the normal type where it is the economic cycle of boom and bust but a societies rise, fall and extinction cycle.
Posted by: Antisthenes | Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 02:37 PM
More than half of mankind experienced socialism in the twentieth century. Almost all of us experienced some less full-blooded implementations than were tried behind the Berlin Wall. There has never been a greater experiment in all human history and It led to the deaths of millions and the impoverishment of billions. If ever an idea was ready for the dustbin of history, surely this one was? Yet it marches on. A zombie ideology; dead but still a threat.
This is to be framed and hung up in every local government office in the UK, then at Westminster.
Posted by: james higham | Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 02:08 PM