In response to my
answer regarding QUORA* : ‘Why do
you think capitalism today is less popular among Democrats than socialism?’, a correspondent commented as follows, ending in a link to “The Basics” of socialism. Comment
from Christopher Henry Kavookjian
You clearly don’t know what socialism is.
Socialism is a system where the workers democratically control
businesses and industries, rather than being commanded by a private property
owner.
There are many types of socialism, spanning from extreme
libertarianism to extreme authoritarianism. However, the only true form of
socialism is one that is 100% democratic and free of money and class
distinctions.
In capitalism, most people are actually less free because they
have to sell their labor in order to live. Under socialism (keep in mind I’m
not talking about Stalinism or Maoism or any of that crap) things like
healthcare, housing, education, childcare, and family leave are already paid
for, and the primary point of work is to serve society and do what you love.
It is not true that in socialism everyone would make equal
paycheck. People would be paid according to their labor. Doctors and Lawers
would still make much more than janitors. The truth is, undesirable jobs like
janitors and street-cleaners would probably not even exist under socialism as
everyone would collectively work together to make their communities more
livable.
Not so scary, right? I am a socialist and this is what I advocate
for. I have no interest in government control of anything beyond healthcare and
education. Here is the link to a site that further explains what I stand for: The
Basics
[NOTE: Kavookjian apparently deleted his comment on 10/1/18.]
I give Christopher credit. At least he didn’t try to hide the reality of socialism by claiming that countries like Sweden are socialist, rather than semi-capitalist mixed economies. Nor did he try to separate socialism from Marxism. His link to “The Basics” relies heavily on Karl Marx, the ideological architect of modern socialism.
“People are actually less free under capitalism
because they have to sell their labor in order to live” is the same argument used against the free labor of the
capitalist North to defend slavery in the Confederate South. Unlike Northern
workers, the slave workers of the South were supplied with “free”
cradle-to-grave satisfaction of their needs, never having to worry about
selling their labor for a paycheck or of ever being unemployed. The enslavement
of a minority was justified, the pro-slavery ideology argued, because state
voters democratically authorized it. The Confederacy was essentially America’s
first encounter with democratic socialism.*
Under modern socialism, people get to vote away
not only other people’s freedom, but their own, as well. Modern socialism’s
solution to the “problem” of workers having “to sell their labor in order to
live” is to trade their precious freedom to earn money for a sham
vote to elect the political Al Capones who will swoop in and seize control of
private businesses and industries created by the private entrepreneurs who
built them through voluntary trade with employees, investors, suppliers, and
consumers. Instead of being “commanded” by private employers who can’t force
them, workers are forced by government to serve “society” rather than
themselves.**
Economics is the vast field of cooperative
activity by which people work and trade voluntarily to support their own
lives, as human nature requires. Business is the main means by which people
voluntarily organize and cooperate toward a common productive mission geared
toward consumers choices, each in pursuit of one’s personal flourishing. A
government with total control of business and industry has total control of the
economy. A government with total control of the economy has total control over
people’s means of supporting their lives. A government with total control over
people's means of self-support is a government that has every individual by the
throat in every aspect of their lives. What freedom, including freedom of
expression or conscience or political dissent, is possible to a citizen faced
with government officials who have controlling power hanging over their lives?
Does it matter whether you have a single ruler or a party apparatus or a
special interest such as “the workers”? Whether it is elected or not? A
government, of whatever kind, that has every individual by the throat is a
totalitarian state. Logic confirms this truth. History has proven this time and
again.
Socialism in any form--fascism, communism,
democratic--is totalitarian by design. There is a reason why socialists seek
political power, rather than voluntary
consent in the private sector— Socialism requires
imposition from the top down regardless of any disagreement. “Political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Only through the state can socialism be
instituted. And so socialists seek control of government--the only institution
that can legally compel obedience to its laws and edicts. Socialism grows out
of the barrel of a gun. True, socialism has many forms. It can be total, as
with national socialism (fascism) or communism. It can be partial, as with the
mixed economy we call the welfare state. Layering “100% democratic” on top
changes nothing. Freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to act
regardless of anyone else’s vote. An enlightened society protects its
minorities from democratic control by protecting the rights of the individual,
the smallest minority. (Of course, once socialists are elected, and have
consolidated their power, they have no more use for democracy. Democracy is a
means to power, not a means to democratic control by “the workers” or anyone
else.)
Rights are guarantees to freedom of action in
pursuit of personal goals, not an automatic claim on goods and services that
others must be forced to provide. A person who is forced to provide for others' material desires--to “serve society”--is a slave. And that’s what socialism is,
at its core--just another form of slavery. Marxian socialism is Confederate
slavery extended across all of society. Whatever its manifestation, the basics
of socialism remain the same. Every socialist initiative begins with armed aggression
by the state against productive private individuals, based on the premise that
the individual’s life is not his own to live. Just let anyone try to peaceably
act on his own judgement, in defiance of government commands. He’d be declared
an outlaw, seized by armed government agents, and locked in a cage. No private
enterprise--no matter how wealthy its owners or how large the enterprise--has
that power of command. The businessman’s only form of “command” is a job or
product offering, from which one is free to walk away.
This is straight out of the socialist horse's
mouth. Socialism is thoroughly totalitarian. It is thoroughly utopian, running
contrary to the individualist requirements of human nature. Just check out “the
basics.” Government force jumps out of every page. Disdain for voluntary
individual consent is evident at every turn. The basics can be simplified as
follows: Socialism is organized crime rising out of the underworld to control a
nation. It begins with theft. Carried to its logical conclusion, socialism ends
the only way it can or ever has when individual freedom is squelched and
voluntary cooperation (markets) is obliterated--in economic paralysis and
collapse, political prisons, tyranny, and ultimately murder.
The basics of Marxism in actual practice: Why
Marxism—Evil Laid Bare--C. Bradley Thompson
for The Objective Standard (Video version: "Why
Marxism?" An Evening at FEE with C. Bradley Thompson [51:13])
The
Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for
Laissez-Faire—Andrew Bernstein
--------------------------------------------------
Kavookjian is careful to disavow any connection
to Marxian socialism in practice. “I’m not talking about Stalinism or Maoism or
any of that crap,” he says. This is a classic evasive tactic of socialists;
wherever socialism is tried and failed, it is never “true socialism.” But don’t
worry. My socialism will work because mine is the real thing. Richard
Mason hits on
why this argument seems semi-plausible:
Why exactly do we treat two equally bloody ideologies [Nazism and
communism] in such starkly different ways?
The answer may lie the in [sic] misperceptions of virtue. Nazis,
rightfully, are seen as hateful and vicious because their ideology is built
around the idea that one group is superior to the other. It is an inherently
anti-egalitarian ideology, a violent belief that was put into practice only
once by those who devised it.
As such, there is no justifiable way in which a fascist could
argue ‘but that wasn’t real Nazism’. The same is not true for communism.
On the contrary; we see this line of argument all the time. Those
on the far-left have a whole umbrella of communist styles, from Stalinism to
Anarchism, Maoism to Trotskyism, or even just classic Marxism. Since Karl
Marx never implemented communism himself, the leaders of communist states
always have that get-out-of-jail-free card. Any shortcomings, tragedies, or
crises a communist regime faces can always be blamed on a misapplication of
Marx’s infallible roadmap to utopia.
Conveniently, communists can always detach themselves from the
horrors of the past. They can paint themselves as pioneers of an ideology that
simply hasn’t had the opportunity to flourish (‘real communism has never been
tried!’).
My emphasis. Nonetheless, Kavookjian is honest
enough to lay out, in brutally explicit detail, what real socialism actually
is--Marxism. When someone on the Left tries to sneak in the mythical
idea that socialism is some kind of Scandinavian
model or tries to whitewash the true nature of socialism by peddling “good
intentions,” refer to Kavookjian’s Comment on my
answer regarding QUORA* : ‘Why do
you think capitalism today is less popular among Democrats than socialism?
Related Reading:
Our
Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People by Randy E. Barnett.
Related Viewing:
VIDEO: What is Socialism? Why is it immoral? [6:51]
NOTES:
* [I relied substantially for this observation
on Chapter 4 “How Slavery Led to a More Republican Constitution” Randy E.
Barnett, Our
Republican Constitution. See George
Fitzhugh, "Centralization
and Socialism"]
** [Contrary to Marxist fantasy, business and
industry are not raw materials of nature lying around like rocks, ready to be
picked up by “owners.” Yet that’s what socialists would have us believe. How
else does one make sense of the statement, “Socialism is a system where the
workers democratically control businesses and industries, rather than being
commanded by a private property owner,” other than to believe that business and
industry (the “means of production”) are just there for the taking? Yet that idea
is the starting point of socialist ideology. The fundamental source of wealth
in not physical labor. The source is man’s mind, an individual attribute.
Businesses and industries are built by the intellectual labor and talent of
entrepreneurs pursuing a vision for the satisfaction of material human desires.
Marx had no use for the human intellect in economic affairs, so he wouldn’t
conceive of a businessman--a capitalist--as anything but a parasite on “the
workers” rather than the wellspring of rising general prosperity.]
Unlike capitalism, which exists to the extent
government refrains from interfering in people’s peaceful individual private
decisions, socialism exists only to the extent government forcibly overrides
people’s right to live by their own judgement and personal pursuits. Ask
yourself what would happen if, under a developing socialist system, some
businessman said, “No, I think I’d rather keep my business and run it my way”;
Or if some taxpaying worker said, “No, I’m not interested in paying for someone
else's ‘right’ to his healthcare or education or food or whatever, nor have
others be forced to pay for mine. I think I’ll keep my money and pay my own
way”; Or if some group formed a political party with a platform calling for
repeal of all socialist laws and re-establishing the rights of citizens to
control their own economic affairs. Just let anyone try to peaceably act on his
own judgement, in defiance of government’s controls. He’d be declared an
outlaw, seized by armed government agents, and locked in a cage. No private
enterprise--no matter how wealthy its owners or how large the enterprise--has
that power of command. The businessman’s only form of “command” is a job or
product offering.
Under socialism, the individual--the “worker”--loses
the only real and morally legitimate means of “controlling” business and
industry--his buy and sell decisions as a consumer and his choice of whom to
work for. All of those decisions are imposed by the state. Any social system
under which the government seizes total command of the economy of necessity
subjugates the individual to the state. From what gets produced to pay scales,
“society”--the economy--is shaped from the top down by socialist masterminds,
as if human life is an ant colony; no room for “money and class
distinctions”--market forces; no room for individual choice. No need even for
street cleaners: the whole country is a prison. People will just be ordered out
to “collectively work together”--a nationwide work release program.
Thanks for confirming the basics of socialism.
Yet socialism forcibly replaces private property
owners whose only form of “command” is a job offer with government gangsters
who have us collectively by our throats.
Democracy substitutes majority rule for individual
self-determination.
It’s laws protect criminals from their victims,
rather than victims from criminals.]
No comments:
Post a Comment