Weekend Question 2: Why Won’t Socialism Die?
Great question. Lee Harris at TCS Daily, after reviewing Bolivia’s in-essence expropriation of its natural gas fields, has a good answer, but misses a big point:
The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has argued in his book, The Mystery of Capital, that the failure of the various socialist experiments of the twentieth century has left mankind with only one rational choice about which economic system to go with, namely, capitalism. Socialism, he maintained, has been so discredited that any further attempt to revive it would be sheer irrationality. But if this is the case, which I personally think it is, then why are we witnessing what certainly appears to be a revival of socialist rhetoric and even socialist pseudo-solutions, such as the nationalization of foreign companies?
….. When Hernando de Soto asserts that capitalism is the only rational alternative left to mankind, he is maintaining that capitalism is the alternative that human beings ought to take because it is the rational thing to do. But what human beings ought to do and what they actually do are often two quite different things. For human beings frequently act quite irrationally, and without the least consideration of what economist called their “enlightened self-interest.”
….. It may well be that socialism isn’t dead because socialism cannot die. As Sorel argued, the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in “the profounder regions of our mental life,” in those realms unreachable by mere reason and argument, where even a hundred proofs of failure are insufficient to wean us from those primordial illusions that we so badly wish to be true. Who doesn’t want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?
Here we have the problem facing those who, like Hernando de Soto, believe that capitalism is the only rational alternative left after the disastrous collapse of so many socialist experiments. Yes, capitalism is the only rational method of proceeding; but is the mere appeal to reason sufficient to make the mass of men and women, especially among the poor and the rejected, shut their ears to those who promise them the socialist apocalypse, especially when the men who are making these promises possess charisma and glamour, and are willing to stand up, in revolutionary defiance, to their oppressors?
….. Men need myths — and until capitalism can come up with a transformative myth of its own, it may well be that many men will prefer to find their myths in the same place they found them in the first part of the twentieth century — the myth of revolutionary socialism.
This is the challenge that capitalism faces in the world today — whether it will rise to the challenge is perhaps the most urgent question of our time, and those who refuse to confront this challenge are doing no service to reason or to human dignity and freedom. Bad myths can only be driven out by better myths, and unless capitalism can provide a better myth than socialism, the latter will again prevail.
Socialists, in the face of all evidence, even the tens of millions of dead bodies, want to believe.
The point I think Harris misses is envy. If people aren’t as well off as they believe they should be, it’s a lot easier to blame someone else than look inward. Taking what the rich people have, and justifying it by convincing yourself that they got that way by oppressing you, is a much easier “solution.” As long as capitalism’s inevitable economic inequality exists (inequality that is acceptable as long as there is a safety net and income mobility), any “leader” willing to exploit envy will have a potential audience. People who flaunt their wealth irresponsibly, especially those who haven’t earned it themselves, serve to make that exploitation more possible.
____________________
UPDATE: Moderate Mainstream has a great related post, with a great wrap-up quote: “As long as liberals continue to hold America and capitalism in low regard and joyfully assist other losers in cheating a system they see as flawed, we will be weaker than we should be and the Osama’s of the world will continue to take advantage of that weakness.”.
Most absurd post ever. Every country in the world is a mixed economy.
America’s never been purely capitalist (no country ever has - at least socialism gave that a shot), and it never will be.
You morans don’t exactly advance your point by comparing socialism to Osama bin Laden.
Back to Debate 101 with all of you.
Comment by Theo — May 8, 2006 @ 10:34 am
#1, Nobody is “comparing socialism to Osama bin Laden.” You see, socialism is a concept and a form of government. Osama is a person. Debate 101 my eye.
As long as socialist countries oppress their citizens, people like Osama and others will be able to point to prosperous countries and claim they are that way because they stole it. This is why spreading democracy and capitalism is a good thing.
As to your quibble, add the words “with a safety net” every time you see the word capitalism in the post, and get over it.
And the least you could do is spell “moron” correctly.
Comment by TBlumer — May 8, 2006 @ 10:54 am
I spelled “moran” just fine:
http://theocracy.wordpress.com/2006/04/07/new-link-category/
And people don’t steal in capitalist economies?
In addition to stealing elections, righty capitalists steal plenty.
What about Kenny Boy, et al.? What about offshore tax shelters? Corporate welfare?
Government (well, not THIS administration) is supposed to keep capitalists honest and the people protected.
Comment by Theo — May 8, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
#3, Gee, did I say that people don’t steal in capitalist economies? Stealing is not the exclusive province of capitalists (see Castro, Chavez, etc.).
Capitalism is like what Churchill said about democracy — It’s the worst form of organizing an economy there is, except for every other one that’s been tried.
And governments (Dem or Rep) have a hard time keeping business people honest. Or did you forget about all those who benefitted from hyping those hopeless dotcom companies during the 1990s while the SEC stood by?
Funny, dictionary.com doesn’t have “moran” as a word, only as a name for a few places:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moran
Comment by TBlumer — May 8, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
Theo, theo, the 0. I was not comparing Osama and socialism, I was stating that those that would actively cheat a system (ILLEGAL immigration apologists) are giving those that seek to destroy that system a clear advantage. If you diminish a system in all thoughts, words and deeds, then that system becomes vulnerable to all types of corruption. The more politicians seek to game the tax code for the benefit of some, the more the tax system becomes corrupt, the easier it becomes for those with no morals to abuse the system.
But, The 0, you don’t buy the whole capitalism/democracy BS anyway. What’s the matta, you got the hots for socialism because it rewards the mediocre and you think that is more fair to you? Why are we debating with a moran? You complain: ” A major American city partially destroyed, thousands dead and many more displaced.” I feel your pain. You have to blame someone for all that has befallen you because to actually look in the mirror, well, it has to be SOMEONE’S fault…not yours.
Comment by Tracy Coyle — May 8, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Tracy, if socialism really “rewards the mediocre”…you should be all for it.
Nothing in your blog suggests much intelligence, especially your silly anti-liberal rants.
Comment by Theo — May 9, 2006 @ 1:29 am