I Don’t Understand Socialism (and neither do you)
As a critic of socialism, at least of the authoritarian brand of socialism, I am continually told that I don’t understand what socialism is. I consider myself a fairly literate person who believes I am able to comprehend ideas and concepts. I have read quite a few books and articles about socialism and capitalism. I’ve tried reading Karl Marx’s Das Kapital but found it to be tedious and incomprehensible. I’m sure it made sense to old Karl, and many of his fans who made quite a following of his ideas. They have certainly created a nice cult revolving around dialectical materialism, revolutionary theory, surplus value and what not.
One person left a comment in one of my articles telling me “You don’t understand socialism at all. You strawman socialism as when the government does stuff. “
Other people tell me “You don’t understand socialism”, the police, schools, fire department, roads, etc. are run by government, therefore all those things are socialism. Since I am a big critic of socialism, those people tell me, using their meticulous socialist logic, that I don’t want police, schools, etc.
Some people tell me socialism IS the government, others tell me it ISN’T the government, all of them tell me I don’t know what socialism is. Heavy sigh…
There are so many brands of leftism, it is hard to keep track of which one is which. There are liberals, socialists, democrat socialists and social democrats, progressives, collectivists, communists, leftists, anarchists who sound like leftists, anti-fascists who hang out with socialists but act like fascists. Don’t forget about the Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists and Fabian Socialists!
Picking one of the many online dictionaries, here is what socialism is. It is a noun. I understand what nouns are.
1) a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2) procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3) (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
That’s odd, none of those definitions include a moral idea like the billboard says it is. And to the guy who tells me socialism isn’t government: but, but, DUDE, read the dictionary definition. It says, “usually through a centralized government”.
In a nutshell, this is what socialism is: everybody owns everything. Isn’t everybody the community? Isn’t most everything “the means of production and distribution”? Roads, schools, health care, factories, farms. In socialism, all of us own all of that. Let the squabbling begin. Factions arise to fairly share the wealth. Everybody is equal, some more than others. Socialism demands central committees, government agencies, legions of government employees to administer the redistributed wealth.
Socialism has a long turbulent ideological history. Various branches of socialism have been at warfare with each other since Marx’s time. Lenin expelled Leon Trotsky and probably had him killed. Germany’s National Socialists waged war against Russian communists. Read about all the types of collectivism and you get the impression that socialism attracts people who desire power over others.
Since I don’t know what socialism is, then I probably don’t know what capitalism is either. I will need to refer to the dictionary. It’s a noun:
1) an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Here is the confounding thing, aren’t those individuals also part of the community? Or am I mistaken? Are corporations part of the community, or are they completely disconnected from it? Here is a really, really advanced concept for my feeble mind: cooperatively owned means of wealth. Cooperatives in many forms exist, credit unions, retail stores, like the old Co-op store my family bought food from when I was growing up on the farm. Part of the community or not?
What prevents anybody from investing in capitalism? Nothing. Anybody, regardless of their income, can buy some sort of mutual fund or investment account that invests in the stock market, making them part owner of the means of production. Many corporations offer profit sharing -gasp!- socialism.
Drilling down deeper, one of the definitions of capital is: the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc. Does that apply to socialism, too? Isn’t the means of production also “capital”?
Perhaps, this coming from somebody who doesn’t know anything, capitalism is really voluntary socialism! If you want to be an owner of the means of production, then buy a share of it. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody is forcing you to invest. It is your choice, invest and be a part communal owner, or don’t invest. Even those who don’t invest get the benefits of living in a capitalist society with plenty to choose from.
In many respects, both systems share similarities. Both require capital, and people, and land and infrastructure. Here is the key difference: capitalism is voluntary. Nobody forces you to invest, nobody forces you to stay. Many socialist regimes built fences to keep people from escaping. In capitalism the only “force” is the reality that each person must support themselves. Marxists would tell us that is how capitalists exploit workers, but I’m not getting suckered down that rabbit hole. When socialist nations build fences to keep people from leaving, tell me who is being exploited.
I’m not saying capitalism is perfect, there are many flaws. That topic is best left to a future article. Notice how the third definition of socialism is the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Do ANY socialists consider it to be imperfect, and do they propose how to improve it? Is total communism really a better form of socialism, and do they even admit that they want communism? Hey! Socialism sucks, but let’s keep it anyway!
Is the definition of socialism really that hard to understand? Or are there so many versions of it that it totally messes up what it really is? Or is the idea of collectivism so badly flawed that it can’t be accurately explained, or even competently implemented?
Humans are individuals, each person has their own values, personality, likes, dislikes. Humans are social beings, we need others, we trade with others in the market community. The eternal debate between individuals and community may never be solved, but it appears obvious which side capitalism and socialism supports, and which one works better. How should our society be organized? With respect to individual rights and voluntary cooperation, like capitalism is based on? Or treat people as a collective, with collective rights and “forced” cooperation?
Sources: