Socialism Is Ethically Wrong

By Enza Ferreri
23 August 2013

The fact that communism, or even socialism, cannot be implemented in reality, is by now widely accepted; even Leftists and liberals, if unhappily and grudgingly, had to surrender to the overwhelming historical evidence which has accumulated especially in the last 2 or 3 decades, showing that a socialist economy is almost a contradiction in terms, and a society based on those principles is barely feasible, and certainly not a happy one.

But hardly anyone seems to question the ethical validity of socialist ideas. In the mind of most people, they still inhabit the moral high ground.

In fact, I believe that socialism not only starts from premises which are wrong factually, but it is also wrong ethically.

First of all, let's start from explaining what wealth is. There is a common misconception that wealth is a theft of sort, that people become rich by taking from others.

I don't think that this idea began with socialism. The French libertarian socialist, or anarchist, Proudhon, famously said: "Property is theft", but I don't think that he was original in that.

No, it seems to me that, when you lack something, to blame someone else for your want is one of the simplest, most instinctive of all human impulses: envy.

The thought behind this seems to be that there's only a given, limited amount of goods, and if somebody has more, then it follows that somebody else must necessarily have less.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/socialism-is-ethically-wrong.html#axzz2cl6L3YO1

We have seen it time and time again. Even the Russian people saw it, although Putin is slowly shackling the Marxist yoke around their necks once more.

 

I am not sure what you mean. From my perspective, Socialism is a requirement for States and Statism to exist.

 

I think you're mischaracterizing socialism with envy. They're not inherently the same thing. Just as capitalism and greed are not interchangeable as many try as they might to do.

 

Socialism is a disease because it is inherently detrimental to an economy. Socialism provides a disincentive to advance and better yourself or your company. Let's look at one of the usual suspects with socialism.

The bailout. A company or a sector or an individual fails or is going into bankruptcy. This company, sector or individual is failing because it made poor decisions. They had poor management, they didn't save enough money, they were frivolous and put their stock in failing endeavors. The socialist elite feel as though they're smarter and better than the market (read: everybody else) so they determine that they're going to make sure this business or sector or individual does not fail. They then appropriate money from the rest of the populace to prop this business up. They reward the failures while penalizing the people who performed well and have extra money. Not only does this disenfranchise the good performers because why should they work hard to succeed when they're simply going to have their money taken away from them and given to people who didn't work hard and do what it takes to succeed... but it also tells the failures that it doesn't matter if they improve themselves or their business. Even if they spend money they can't afford... even if they make poor decisions and do things a prudent successful company or individual would do... even if they put people in charge of their lives or business that are incompetent... even if they complete and abject failures, that's okay because the socialist elite are going to steal money from the rest of the populace and give it to them. Why should GM become more efficient? Why should GM put competent managment in place? Why should GM become more innovative? Why should GM renegotiate with the unions? Why should GM because more cost effective? Why spend the time and money to fix all of these things if socialism is going to ensure that you don't fail even at the expense of the consumer?

This is only one aspect of socialism that is detrimental to a healthy and vibrant economy. We haven't even started talking about how harmful welfare, food stamps, SS, subsidies, government run sectors (healthcare) etc etc are.

Socialism is an absolute disease.

 

The question of ethics doesn't even arise, the blogger is simply wrong. Socialism works on the basis of social ownership of the means of production. Capitalism works on the private ownership of the means of production. On the basics neither is unethical.

 

I cede that command or centrally-planned economies do not appear to have functioned in a desirable manner using the technologies available to governments during the 20th century, would contend a truly classless society is implausible, also that Marxist thinkers focused far too much on economic capital relative to other forms of capital, and offshoots of Leninist ideology suffered from a number of noteworthy flaws which - at least to me - make them very undesirable to experiment with any further. Nevertheless, none of that implies to me all forms of socialism have been reasonably shown to be every bit as flawed.

Whereas my ethical premises flow from a combination of liberalist thought and virtue politics, though the fine details are difficult to present without being awfully long-winded.

So far as I am concerned, markets are tools only useful if they advance the interests of all individuals in society. Optimum economic performance is not the highest of all my priorities.

Socialism would not provide a disincentive for excellence in labour when the workers of a firm own their respective cooperative, stand to reap a share of profits from effectively competing against other co-ops, do not get "bailed out" when the decisions made in their co-op via workplace democracy lead to the failure of said firm, and market forces generally get to set prices without state invention beyond the establishment of (arguably) fair terms of competition.

Although an unconditional basic income could be said to discourage personal responsibility and deter able people from putting themselves to work, the potential benefits of such a form of welfare (e.g. far less bureaucracy, no classist discrimination; subsequent ability to be rid of the minimum wage, means-tested programs, public pension systems; etc.) seem far more attractive to me than the expected detriments.

Or other things caused their failure. Either way, in the long run markets appear to do more in the way of creation than destruction. It is okay to step back and let events transpire on their own so long as a decent regulatory framework is in place for defending individual rights and loss of economic resources is not permitted to beget the subsequent loss of the individual's actionable freedoms and access to opportunities to dust their self off and get back into the game. This is just speaking for me but I have taken a fondness to some ordoliberal attitudes and reckon they go along well with socialism.

That approach is only acceptable to me for a very limited range of industries, and even then I would not be comfortable with the government itself directly managing these businesses or sectors. Though generally averse to nationalization and having a somewhat negative outlook on the state's ability to run successful businesses, I do not entirely rule it out in some cases - specifically when it pertains to delivering constitutionally-guaranteed goods and services to the People.

Personally, I would like to do away with food stamps, TANF, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - to name a few of the programs you had in mind, and do not advocate a state-run healthcare system. The British Beveridge model is very unattractive to me, whereas to some extent I'm fascinated with the insurance schemes used in Germany and France. One of 'em may be worth emulating, though I've yet to make up my mind on the matter. Anyway, on the whole I am convinced that most of the problems with socialism can be solved by letting go of Marxist dogma and pragmatically incorporating aspects of other models that seem to work well and can be made to serve my overarching moral values.

 

Very eloquently stated. We are not entirely symmetrical with regards to our beliefs, but your concepts are redolent of a nascent America wherein the precept of "promote the general welfare" stood far above an empty political motive, and are somewhat reminiscent of Theodore Roosevelt's progressive plan that was in the intended interest of the country versus being the populist motives of a narcissistic political figure.

You are indubitably the fastest horse on this track. Incidentally, I'm a lot longer in the tooth on this site than I appear.

Cheers, and thank you for an inspiring expostulation. Brilliant.

 

Stop using such big words. These 'socialism is bad cuz my leaders said so' crowd will get a nose bleed and they'll bill you for the band-aids and cotton swabs.

It's not worth it.

 

We can only guess that the mass murders and genocide throughout Russia and it's satellites those killed in Asia in the name of Socialism amounting in the hundreds of millions is misunderstood by the survivors and the rest of the world.

 

Naturally, few if any have died under capitalistic dictatorships, right?

 

Only when your premises you expound on exclude ethic cleansing, genocide and mass murders of those in opposition. However it comes hand in hand with Socialism each and every time.

 

Likewise with Capitalism and the United States' war crimes.

 

Are we going to discuss the 20th and 21st Centuries or would you care to go further back into history?

 

I'd say that you simply don't understand what socialism is. leninsm, stalinism, and maoism are a few of the many schools of socialism/communism but there are many others. Genocide and mass murder isn't a part of socialism everytime. Look at england and sweden for example, no mass murder going on here.

 

And I'm sure the lithium supply in Afghanistan had absolutely nothing to do with any reason why we were there. Just like we didn't use any of Iraq's oil or anything when we decided to smoke screen the public with media clouding the link between 9/11 and Sadam Hussein...people still think Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11. So yeah, ancient history. I'm sure they're not thinking it's ancient history.

 

What is morally wrong with; from each according to his ability to each according to need?

It is a simple moral dilemma and we may merely not be evolved enough to be that moral.

 

And those who orchestrated these atrocities were enemies of the People. Furthermore, I also have strongly unfavorable opinions of the governments in the PRC, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. Though to some extent in awe of the great Soviet experiment, the political groups dominant in socialist countries during the past century are not ones with which I'd align.

Edit: Though if we include social democracies among socialist countries I suppose there were parties in most of them I would be comfortable collaborating with or joining. Nowadays it is getting trickier, with a lot of labour, socialist, and social democratic parties in name not actually aiming for socialism in their platforms. But that's a whole separate issue. xD

I am more strongly anti-authoritarian than most people, have a humanistic value-set that places a rigidly high degree of importance on civil liberties and other rights of the individual, and am an ardent opponent of the forms of violence you describe. An ideologically-diverse and multi-party system is what I've got in mind, free and fair elections would of course continue, and I would honour their results regardless of outcome. Quality of process matters more to me than quality of results, and if the People do not want socialism - whether in the form I prefer or one advocated by somebody else - I do not want for it to be implemented by the government. Along those same lines, I support revolution only when sovereignty is wrested away from the People, i.e. generally when a regime eliminates or severely restricts the means by which folks can peacefully alter the political course of their country.

 

because there's another incompatible thought: There's the thought that I own the product of my labour and should be able to decide what to do with it. Thus, from each according to ability to each according to need would only work if people of ability would voluntarily give to people of need. That isn't the case with everyone, and the only means to get their contributions without their consent is basically violence or the threat of it. It's not hard to see the moral dilemma there.

 

Yes, People don't have enough of the free social moral of "goodwill toward men" under our form of Capitalism.

 

I prefer to view them all as failures with Nazism, Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism at the head of the list. Combined they have accounted for the deaths of hundreds of millions of souls. Yet Progressive Socialists tend to accept the deaths of innocents as part of the price for their advancement of ideology.

 

Hmm..., perhaps you should ingest some of that Lithium to make your outlook better.

 

It is my firm belief that in order to form an unbiased opinion on an issue, there must be an understanding of the issue itself.

True Marxist Communism has never been attempted within human society, and if it were ever attempted, it would drastically fail in a short amount of time. Indeed, all Communist forms of government rely on the premise that a population can collectively and entirely set aside its innate desire to live as comfortable as possible. That Communists rely on a political party to undertake their policies and that advancement within the Party is achieved only by being successful is a direct acknowledgement of a capitalist principle, that success leads to advancement and greater comforts.

There are distinct and important differences between socialism and communism that must be understood in order to come to a proper understanding. True socialists do not disallow the ownership of private property, while communists do. Socialism also relies on the will of the people to willfully elect the party into office. Communists focus more on armed violence against the bourgeois aristocracy.

Socialism goes to the heart of human nature. We are a species of animal that has evolved throughout history to have cordial relationships with fellow humans. Look at what stories on the news give us good feelings, they often involve humans helping other humans in time of need. That is what socialism is, an institutionalized and codified obligation to help those who are disadvantaged.

Purity is rarely, if ever, good. To understand this, we only need to look to the world of chemistry. If you would, consider Element number 79, gold. Yes, 24-karat gold is often considered to be pure, despite it only being 99.9% gold technically. Still, the so-called “pure” gold is only good for decoration, it is an overly soft metal and despite its beauty, its usefulness is severely limited. Another example can be made of iron. Iron’s usefulness was known for millennia, but it was not until the revelation that when adding carbon to iron, that you get an alloy that has a much wider amount of uses.

In terms of governance, we can all agree that pure Communism would fail as a form of government that does not recognize the freedom of choice, and it also directly contravenes the entirety of human nature in that we often band together into a hierarchal societal delineation which is not present in communism. Pure socialism, while a better choice than communism, still does not adequately enough address the human nature to advance as fast as possible. On the other side of the spectrum, pure free-market capitalism breeds a society with a higher prevalence of criminal activity as the poorest members of society seek to take from the rich by any means necessary in the same way that they see the rich have accrued that wealth.

Pure anarchy would not work, either, since anarchy, like the other extreme of communism, ignores the human nature to have a hierarchy within society. In fact, anarchic society is, in effect, an oxymoron.

This line of reasoning is the core behind my philosophy that in order to have a truly workable system, we need one that combines the best features of all systems. Let those that can make money, make as much as they like, and only take enough from them to ensure that the poorest within society are not left to wallow.

 

...or you could accept the 'liberating the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of these guys' isn't the only reason we do what we do.

 

I don't think the point has been taken yet that a dictatorship means mass killings, not the economic system that the dictatorship runs. Socialism doesn't imply dictatorship any more than does capitalism. To continue to equate socialism with dictatorship is just silly.

 

Communism seems to work for the religious and is anecdotal evidence in favor of my hypothesis that we are merely not "evolved" enough to practice, from each according to their ability to each according to their need.