The Atlas Society ran this video of Milton Friedman explaining why capitalism is Superior to Socialism. With respect to Friedman, I think he epitomizes why Socialism keeps winning.
Friedman defines Socialism as a system of social organization in which the government owns and runs the means of production. So he’s talking about what I describe as Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society. Good start.
But he then grants proponents of socialism the benefit of the doubt -- good intentions. I don’t believe good intentions to be fundamental to the Socialist mind. Given the well-known history of Criminal, or state-imposed, Socialism in practice, any good intentions are just a reflection of ignorance.
But I don’t see ignorance as the prime attraction for Socialists. The attractions are much lower. As I observed in a QUORA answer to “What makes someone a socialist?:
What type of person does such a system appeal to? Since socialism forcibly redistributes wealth from those who earned it to those who don’t, it appeals to greed. Since socialism requires totalitarian powers for government officials, it appeals to powerlust. Since socialism systematically punishes and ultimately destroys productive individuals, it appeals to envy and hatred of achievement. Add to that a craving for unearned prestige; i.e., the desire to be seen as “caring about the welfare of others,” without actually having do do anything for the welfare of others--socialism is a cover to force others to pay for craver’s pseudo-compassion, with the government as his hired gun. So socialism has appeal to the phony. Greed, powerlust, envy, hatred, and phoniness, or some combination thereof, are what draws people to socialism. Why these vices and nothing better? Because virtuous motivations belong to the self-responsible people who simply want to live in peaceful coexistence with others, neither being controlled by others nor controlling others, and who respect the same rights of others to live by their own judgement. Self-responsible, respectful people who fully understand what socialism actually is simply are not attracted to socialism.
Granting the benevolent label “good intentions” to today’s Socialists is a pass they don’t deserve.
But that’s not the worst of it. Friedman then grants Socialism the moral high ground. He says people are repelled by Capitalism because Capitalism “emphasizes self-interest.” They are repelled by Capitalism putting “narrow” self-interest” ahead of “some broader interest.” It does, but Friedman leaves that fact hanging. He doesn’t explicitly condemn self-interest. But there is a definite “yes, but” before going on to say that Capitalism results in the general betterment of the “common man.” The implication: Capitalism works despite the drawback of individuals pursuing self-interest, and Socialism doesn’t work despite the good intentions of its high-minded, fine adherents.
I think the truth is the exact opposite. Friedman defines Capitalism as a system of private property and voluntary exchange. True, but it’s more than that. Much more. Capitalism is workable, and good, because it leaves people free to pursue their self-interest in voluntary exchange of private property with other self-interested people. Socialism fails precisely because it treats the “common man” as subordinate to the state--that is, as a slave. Socialism is evil precisely because it forces people to serve “some broader interest.” It is this utopian collective moral ideal that leads to all of the horrors of socialism, from economic paralysis and collapse to the crushing of personal freedom and rights to mass murder. If state-imposed collective interests trump personal interest, then on what basis do people claim a right to their lives, liberties, properties, or pursuit of happiness?
Friedman calls Socialists “high-minded, fine people.” For what? For being against the common man’s moral right to advance his own self-interest? For denying his right to his own life? Proponents of Capitalism, especially those proponents who understand fully, on economic and moral grounds, are the ones who deserve that compliment.
The Atlas Society, which put out this video, says “This Might Be The BEST Argument AGAINST Socialism You Will Hear!” This is the Society that promotes Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged! I would say Atlas Shrugged is the best argument against Socialism and for Capitalism. You’d think the Atlas Society would, too.
With arguments like “Socialism is good in theory, but it doesn’t work. Capitalism is morally suspect but it works,” we radicals for Capitalism will never win. Friedman says “look at the results, not the motives or moral premises.” But social systems don’t work or not work for no reason. There are reasons, and they go to motivations and, especially, moral/philosophical principles. There is no dichotomy between theory and practice. Socialism doesn’t work (to put it mildly) because it is bad in theory. Capitalism works because it is good in theory.
Friedman has contributed mightily to the economic understanding of free markets. But economics alone won’t win the battle of Capitalism over Socialism. Ayn Rand convinced me a long time ago that morality trumps economics. As long as Capitalism’s moral essence is minimized, Socialism will keep coming back even though it is a blood-sucking vampire.
Related Reading:
QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’
QUORA: ‘Do you believe in free market capitalism?’
Yes, Bernie Sanders, Castro's literacy program was 'a bad thing.' by Yuri Pérez
QUORA *: ‘Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?’
China’s Recovery from Socialism vs. Bernie Sanders, The Most Evil Politician in America
QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'
“Who Would Choose Socialism? The Israeli Kibbutzim Provide the Acid Test for Voluntary Socialism”, by Robert Nozick. Reason, May 1978.
A New Textbook of Americanism—edited by Jonathan Hoenig
Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter
QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?‘
QUORA: Why do capitalist governments bail out large corporations? Isn’t this a practice of a socialist government?
4 comments:
Why do so many of these *vs* posts devolve quickly into over-simplification/hyperbole? "blood-sucking vampire"? "Socialism doesn’t work (to put it mildly) because it is bad in theory. Capitalism works because it is." (bad in theory?)
Unless societies can control the bad human traits that turn capitalism into an oligarchical orgy of blood-sucking autocratic vampires (my attempt at over-simplification/hyperbole), there will always be a pendulum swing between the isms. Both isms can result in the same harms to the common good due to bad implementation.
We need to back away from the notion that this is a binary decision, and roll our own theory and implementation. UBI and govt-sponsored healthcare/housing/education/jobs (for those who choose it) would be good places to start. And of course, an end to corporate socialism, which seems to be the only type tolerated in the U.S.
"Capitalism works because it is good in theory." Thanks for catching that. I corrected it for what I intended to say.
True, debates often devolve into non-essentials. My point is to get to the essential differences between the two concepts, which is the moral principles involved. Under Capitalism, the individual's right to live by his own judgement is protected by the state. Under socialism, his life is subordinated to the collective--i.e., the "common good" as determined by the state. People should be free to form socialist associations, but not use the state's coercive legal apparatus to impose it on those who disagree (click the link "Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society" from the post above). Therefor, no government-imposed socialist programs--including UBI and govt-sponsored healthcare/housing/education/jobs or corporate socialism--would be consistent with a free society, which is the only kind of society in which Capitalism can exist. Government should be neutral, performing only the task of securing individual rights to self-government--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe you are conflating the political system with the economic system. The political system we have (democracy) enables rights such as self-determination (which derives from liberty and more generally "pursuit of happiness") within limits, as long as the applicable laws are created and administered equitably. The economic system (capitalism) also benefits from the political system and influences it, but in our case the political system is often used to create and perpetuate political and economic inequity. That inequity can (and does) threaten the basic rights: life (which includes health) and self-determination (which depends upon equity of political/economic opportunity). You seem to want to grant those to capitalism exclusively, by claiming that they are inherently denied in socialist contexts. I disagree. Every application of rights is contextual to how the political system is implemented and administered through law. The economic system can influence that, but only to the extent enabled by the political system. In our case the economic system centralizes power which then creates/perpetuates further inequities through the political system.
The political system we have is not, in its original conception, a democracy, despite decades and decades of statist propaganda. Democracy is the majority having the power to vote a minority into slavery, which is how the pro-slavery intellectuals defended the Confederacy (https://www.history.com/topics/us-politics/democratic-party). We have a Constitutional Republic based on the principle of inalienable individual rights. Individual rights—which are rights to freedom of action, not stuff that others are forced to provide—is the original “safe space” that protects us from political tyranny, democratic or other. Laws can only be "created and administered equitably" if they are based on equal protection of individual rights regardless of color, gender, economic status, and so on. Something like UBI is not equitable because it begins with confiscation of individual wealth for redistribution to those who do not own it. A politically free society is one in which property rights, and liberty rights generally, are protected equally and at all times, and the government’s legal apparatus can not be used by private factions for rights-violating, or criminal, means.
Above you said I was "conflating the political system with the economic system." But I actually said “A free society [is] the only kind of society in which Capitalism can exist.” The two shouldn’t be conflated. Politics is force. Economics is voluntarism. A political system that allows elected officials to redistribute wealth and interfere in the economic affairs of its citizens who have violated no one’s rights may be democratic, but it is neither free or equitable nor consistent with the principles of a free society. UBI, govt-sponsored healthcare/housing/education/jobs, corporate bailouts or favors, and the like are never justified. I do not conflate politics with economics. What I’m saying is you cannot separate economics from individual rights. I am defining Capitalism properly as a social system based on the separation of economics and state (politics), a la separation of religion and state.
Post a Comment