The Myth of the Ill-Informed, Well-Intentioned Socialist

Steven Horwitz has an article published on FEE—the Foundation for Economic Education—titled Why We Should Take the “Socialism” Part of Democratic Socialism Seriously. Agreed. But I have big problems with this article, starting with the subtitle:

Democratic socialism isn’t the same as autocratic communism, but there are problems with socialism that democracy can’t solve.

Democracy is the premise of majority rule; that is, whatever the “will of the majority” decides must be done, the government must do.; that is, might over right. Far from “solving” the “problems with socialism,” democracy compliments those problems (and injustices).

Horwitz goes on the make the economic case for free markets over socialist central planning, but from a collectivist premise. E.G.:

The question facing democratic socialists is this: how, in the absence of market prices, profit and loss signals, and private ownership of the means of production will even the most purely motivated actors in a deeply democratic process know what their fellow citizens want and need and, what’s more important, how best to produce those goods and services?

If the conflict between socialism and capitalism is all about how best to allocate goods and services, it’s an open invitation for any socialist to always claim he can do it better, if only he had the power over peoples’ economic affairs, and their votes. The only way to counter the socialist is to stand up for the individual’s moral right to “allocate” the product of his own work. True, a consequence of individual property rights is the general satisfaction of the wants of “the masses.” But individual rights, not economic practicality, is the crucial counterpoint.

I don’t think I’m misinterpreting Horwitz’s premise. The collectivist premise is explicit:

Those same prices and profits of the market help us figure out how best to make the things that people want. This part of what markets do is often overlooked by socialists of all stripes.

“Us” and “markets do” allow the socialists to frame the conflict in collectivist terms. Pro-capitalists must reframe the debate along individualist premises. Otherwise, the socialist ultimately wins.

But the biggest problem I have with Horwitz’s approach becomes apparent in his opening paragraphs, which include this:

Those making the case for democratic socialism really do wish to avoid the totalitarianism of the 20th-century history of socialism. Whether they can avoid that outcome, despite their good intentions, is an issue I will return to in what follows. [emphasis added]

The sum of Horwitz’s argument is, “The socialists are economically ignorant, but well-intentioned.” This message carries right through to his concluding paragraph:

Until socialists of all stripes come to grips with the role that prices, profits, and private ownership play in helping us to figure out both what people want and how best to produce it, they will continue to be mystified by socialism’s continued failure. Increased democratic control will not solve the structural problems that arise whenever people attempt to abolish the institutions of the market. In the end, the problem with democratic socialism is that it’s socialist.

I’m not buying the myth of the ill-informed, good-intentioned socialist. They mean to take your freedom in exchange for the illusion of democratic “control.”

Under capitalism, your most important "vote" is embodied in your inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and property--the inextricable linkage of rights that adds up to the freedom to govern your own life through your own choices. Under democratic socialism, you give up the one vote that actually counts, your personal freedom to choose, in exchange for a meaningless political vote--an utterly inconsequential vote buried among millions. You give up your inalienable individual rights in exchange for the "right" to choose the masters who would govern the lives of all, including your own.

This article makes a clear economic case for why socialism can’t “work” and why free markets do. And it’s not enough. It never has been enough. It’s the same argument used by free marketeers for decades, and yet here we are--a major political party openly committed to a broad totalitarian socialist agenda, and likely to soon gain the power to impose it. I’m not buying that this latest incarnation of socialist is ignorant of economics--not after Smith and  Mises and Hayek and Friedman, et al have been proven right in practice. OAC and co. are an intelligent, educated group. They know the truth. They don’t care. They are every bit as motivated by utopianism and powerlust as their autocratic communist predecessors. They seek political power to advance their cause, because "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"--and so does every aspect of their socialist agenda.

Having convinced most of us that America is about democratic, rather than republican, government, the “Progressives” are now cashing in on ignorance to sucker enough voters into voting socialism into power. But freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live your life regardless of anyone else's vote or the outcome of any election. Democracy unconstrained by ironclad constitutional protections for individual rights is totalitarian. Democratic socialism is a sham. It is the merger of two totalitarian concepts, logically every bit as totalitarian as Stalinism. All socialism grows out of the barrel of a gun, and democratic socialism is no different. They really are Stalinist wannabes who believe that our lives and property belong to the state. We ignore their powerlust at our peril. There is no longer any such thing as the ill-informed, good-intentioned socialist--not after a century of socialism in practice. They’re all thugs and sociopaths.

Horwitz observes that “arguing that someone like [congresswoman Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez is just a Stalinist wannabe is not an effective counter-argument.” True, merely labeling OAC and co. as “Stalinist wannabes” isn’t enough, even if true. And it’s true the socialists have already lost on the economic merits. But they don’t care about what “works” if it leads to economic inequality. They are motivated by something more powerful than economics--a radical egalitarian, collective moral vision. They must be engaged on their ideas not merely on economic grounds but on philosophical and moral grounds, because Capitalism is built on an opposite, equally radical moral vision--individualism.

One can observe in concrete terms exactly what Democratic Socialists want by examining the  avalanche of legislative bills they’re proposed or advocated since the midterm elections. All involve increasing economic controls and taxes that go well beyond the redistributive welfare state “safety net.” To “grease the skids” for their agenda, they seek more concentration of power in the federal government by demolishing the checks and balances put into place by the Founding Fathers to restrain government power. It’s only been weeks since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. Already, the outlines of their totalitarian socialist agenda is becoming clear. From massive and multiple tax increases, to controls on business, to abolition of the electoral college and the Senate and “public” funding of elections, they are concretizing their statist designs. Practical arguments alone won’t stop them. Otherwise, they’d have not gotten this far--to actual legislative control by explicit socialists. Collectivism vs. individualism: That’s where the battle is. Otherwise, we lose.

Related Reading:

QUORA: 'Why do people think capitalism is ethical?'

Capitalism and the Moral High Ground by Craig Biddle

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Don't Equate the Essence of Socialism to Capitalism

The Real Conflict Undergirding the Kavanaugh Fight: Democracism versus Republicanism

What is Capitalism? By Ayn Rand