Sanders Validates Hicks’s ‘Crisis of Socialism’ Contention

Led by Karl Marx, socialists once contended that capitalism would lead to “the rich getting richer while the poor masses get poorer.” But, philosopher Stephen Hicks contends, by the middle of the 20th Century it became obvious that capitalism had led to rising general prosperity while socialism had impoverished entire countries and even generated unspeakable tyranny. 

Socialists could no longer deny the truth of widespread benefits. So they faced a crisis; either renounce socialism and embrace capitalism, or re-engineer their anti-capitalism to save socialism. They chose re-engineering. In Chapter 5 of his book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Hicks explains that, among other things, the socialists changed their ethical standard from need to equality.

I thought of this when I read Bernie Sanders: ‘Thank God’ for Capitalism in Intellectual Takeout. Rev. Ben Johnson quotes this from a CNBC interview with self-described socialist Bernie Sanders,

“[CNBC Reporter John] Harwood: How do you factor in the significance of the fact that modern, global capitalism has substantially reduced poverty in other parts of the world?

“Sanders: When you talk about the global economy, you’re right. Thank God. The terrible, terrible poverty that has been seen in the developing world, some of that is receding. That’s great. On the other hand, you are looking at an unbelievable and grotesque level of global income and wealth inequality. And you’re also seeing, not only massive income and wealth inequality, but in many countries a movement toward increased authoritarianism and away from human rights and democracy.”

My emphasis. Johnson also latched on to this statement:

Sanders’ pivot to highlighting “income inequality” perfectly illustrates Margaret Thatcher’s rejoinder to a British MP that socialists care less about human flourishing than grounding everyone down to a common level of misery. She famously quipped: “He would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. … So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. You do not create wealth and opportunity that way. You do not create a property-owning democracy that way.”

Johnson’s article, Bernie Sanders: ‘Thank God’ for Capitalism, is worth reading in its entirety.

I posted this comment:

"Sanders’ pivot to highlighting 'income inequality'” also illustrates chapter 5 of Stephen Hicks's observations in his book "Explaining Postmodernism." In Chapter 5, "The Crisis of Socialism," Hicks explains that as capitalism enabled general prosperity to rise and basic needs even for the poor were being met, the socialists' claim that under capitalism "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" was proven utterly wrong. So the socialists needed a new tactic to discredit capitalism. So beginning in the mid-20th Century, they switched their focus "From need to equality (P. 151)." Of course, income (or wealth) inequality is a red herring. The integrated nature of economic progress shows that rising general prosperity and rising economic inequality are inextricably linked. As the world gets richer, the opportunities for the most productive entrepreneurs to make ever-greater fortunes rises commensurately, fueling further general progress and even greater fortunes. The “unbelievable and grotesque level of global income and wealth inequality” Sanders laments is neither. It is a perfectly understandable feature of progress and a development to be cheered. But the “New Socialists” need a rationalization for political power, so they harp on economic inequality.

An outline of Chapter 5 can be found here. A reading of Chapter 5 is available here. Or you can get the book

Related Reading:

Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook

QUORA: ‘How do capitalists justify the inequality/high disparity part of a capitalistic society that a socialistic system tends to stop?’

QUORA: '[W]hy do we ignore all the examples of capitalism failing, like the major divide between the wealthy and the poor in the US?'

How is it Possible that ‘1% control over 95% of the wealth?’ It’s Not, and They Don’t.

Related Viewing:

John Tamny: "The Unrelenting Beauty of Wealth Inequality"