The Definition of Socialism[1] Socialism, like libertarianism, is an exceedingly vague ideology. The definition of socialism is founded on two fundamental maxims: Thomas Jefferson's, "All men are created equal," and Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."1 Problematically, socialists offer few practical details about how these two principles are to be realized. [2] Just as libertarians see the world through the lens of the individual, socialists see the world through the lens of society. Whereas for the libertarian, the genius of Mozart can be explained in terms of individual talent and hard work, for the socialist, Mozart must be considered within a social context, such as the environment in which he was raised and the historical and social forces surrounding him. [3] This societal lens will already be familiar to students in the humanities and social sciences; socialism is the ideology of the intellectual class, which takes Jefferson's maxim quite literally and has resolved to scientifically explain any and every instance of inequality. A "liberal education" is now largely a sociological education, and sociology, as Isaiah Berlin points out, is the invention of Marx.2 [4] This brings us to the Marxian maxim at the heart of the definition of socialism, the famous, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Both capitalism and communism, despite the latter's claims to the contrary, address only half of this problem. [5] Capitalism grants the individual the freedom to achieve the first part of Marx's dream, that is, the "from each according to his ability." It does not fully address the problem of "to each according to his needs," however, because it presumes the individual is capable of using his abilities to fulfill his needs. A liberal economy is a mixed economy which marries the efficiencies of free markets with a modest redistribution of wealth to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. [6] Communism, on the other hand, is far more concerned with unmet needs than realized abilities, for the communist is well aware that the freedom to make the most of one's abilities inevitably produces unequal results. By using state coercion to fulfill unmet needs, communism severely restricts individual freedoms, thereby diminishing both the means and incentive to make the most of one's talents. [7] The definition of socialism, while seemingly a compromise between the twin extremes of capitalism and communism, is far closer to communism than it is to capitalism. Socialism is perhaps best described as Marxism in the conceptual phase. While socialists recoil from the totalitarian reality of communism, they are nevertheless convinced that everyone's needs can be met and everyone's potential fulfilled without the restriction of freedom. [8] Marx considered this kind of thinking "utopian." In the Manifesto, Marx complains of socialists who "want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom."3 Essentially, socialists want to live in a Marxian society without a dictatorship of the proletariat. [9] The definition of socialism, then, may be said to be a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice. "Considerable control" may or may not entail public ownership, while "social justice" usually depends upon the whims of a bureaucratic elite. Generally speaking, a market-based economy is antithetical to socialist principles, and some form of benevolent planning is advocated. [10] Of course, such a definition of socialism is exceedingly vague, but the pursuit of "fairness"—the ultimate goal of socialism—is necessarily vague, given that each of humanity's several billion individuals has a unique view of what "fairness" entails. [11] And it is precisely in this lack of specificity that the danger of socialism consists. The Tyranny of the Many Over the Few[12] Although socialism is often defined by socialists as "real democracy," it is in fact mobocracy, or the tyranny of the many over the few. To see why, let us consider an example.[13] Imagine that you are factory owner manufacturing cars. Under communism, your factory would be confiscated by the dictatorship of the proletariat and its production managed by a centralized bureaucracy. The difference between a communist and a socialist, however, is that the socialist does everything in half-measures. Under socialism, you may well be allowed to keep your factory on the conditions that you do not earn an "excessive" profit and that you provide well-paying, spiritually-fulfilling jobs to your employees, allowing each of them a vote in all of your decisions. [14] Recall that "fairness" is crucial to the definition of socialism and note that this term is defined through a societal lens. From a socialist perspective, it is unfair that you own the factory in the first place and your authority over your employees is seen as "exploitation," regardless of how well you pay them or how kindly you treat them. Socialists are only willing to allow you to maintain ownership because they balk at the prospects of workers mortgaging their homes for working capital or a dictatorship of the proletariat assuming direct control of the factory. [15] Imagine that you decide to manufacture a new type of car. To do so, you will have to get the approval of your employees, who have little incentive to give you their permission without receiving anything in return. Additionally, you will have to get the approval of "societal stakeholders," such as the people who live in the same city as your factory who feel that more car production may increase air pollution and decrease their quality of life. Finally, you will have to incorporate into your designs the "helpful suggestions" of government bureaucrats, who exist to promote the social good. [16] Of course, if the car is manufactured and no one buys it, you will personally absorb all losses. Nor will you reap any substantial reward from its success. You are essentially expected to produce wealth for everyone's benefit except your own, and far from receiving any thanks, to endure abuse and scorn in return. Would you manufacture cars under these conditions? [17] Not many people would, and therein lies the problem with the definition of socialism; it provides no incentive for production, and it sacrifices individual economic freedoms for a vaguely defined "social good." Economic freedom is little loved by most people when corporate interests are concerned, but the same restrictions imposed on wealthy factory owners affect the single mother running a small catering business out of her kitchen. Socialism and Bureaucracy[18] The definition of socialism necessarily implies a large government bureaucracy because it is simply impractical to hold a national referendum every time a business decision must be made. As such, government bureaucrats must be appointed to represent the "social good" by approving or disapproving business initiatives.[19] Ironically, a tyranny of the many over the few is virtually identical to a tyranny of the few over the many, in so far as power becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite group of unelected officials. [20] Like libertarianism, socialism produces a transitory tyranny. Eventually, a tyranny of the many over the few ends when the few either buckle under the weight of the burden they are asked to bear for society, or simply give up. Given the similarities between the definition of socialism and the definition of communism, it is hardly surprising that what takes the place of the tyranny of the many over the few is the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the tyranny of all over one. 2008
|
