PBR: What is Wrong with Socialism?

Posted by Jordan J. Ballor
on Monday, February 2, 2009

This week we introduce a new regular feature we’re calling “PowerBlog Ramblings” (PBR). The concept is simple: we’ll post a question along with some background for why that question has been selected, and various PowerBlog contributors and guests will respond to that question.

We’ve named this feature “PowerBlog Ramblings” in part as an allusion to the publication with which the institute’s namesake Lord Acton was closely associated for a time, The Rambler, which was in part aimed “to provide a medium for the expression of independent opinion on subjects of the day” on topics including “home and foreign literature, politics, science and art.”

But “ramblings” are also more informal and occasional than other sorts of discursive expression, and in that spirit we’re looking to start conversations and dialogue on questions of the day with the mix of moral, theological, and economic insight you’re used to getting from the PowerBlog. That’s why these questions and answers will sometimes be more polished and sometimes not.

We’ll have a sidebar on the blog main page where we’ll post the main PBR along with all of the posted responses. Old questions and ramblings will be accessible via an archive. As always, we welcome and value your responses. If you’ve got suggestions for questions you’d like to see us tackle, email the PowerBlog staff.

The inspiration for this week’s question is a brief exchange on Fox News Channel, which includes Bob Beckel asking, “What is wrong with some form of socialism in certain areas?” The context of the quote is a discussion about the desirability of lowering domestic economic production out of concern for environmental impact.

Others are making the argument that we ought to “shrink our economy” not out of environmental but rather cultural concerns.

So the PBR question for this week is, “What is wrong with socialism?”

Ramble on…

Ramblings:

16

comments
share yours

Category: What is wrong with socialism?

Responses:

I engage quite often with the socialist-leaning members of my evangelical church, and almost always come back to Milton Friedman’s argument that private interest is better at meeting needs and providing for the public good, than some sort of socialized policy to try and decide how to do the same. I like to use the example that because of capitalism and the marketplace we have heart valves, artificial limbs, defibrillators, and all sorts of advances in medicine. All because someone was trying to make a buck, *not* because they were primarily concerned with any humanistic value.

Mark S.
February 2, 2009
11:58 am
Consider two men. Providing that neither man offers to initiate force against the other, or to take the fruit of the other’s labor via fraud, on what basis can it be said that one man’s will should prevail over the other man’s?

Ken
February 2, 2009
3:44 pm
“I like to use the example that because of capitalism and the marketplace we have heart valves, artificial limbs, defibrillators, and all sorts of advances in medicine. All because someone was trying to make a buck, not because they were primarily concerned with any humanistic value.”

While the market and profit motive may be the driving factor for the “mass distribution” of these and other medical miracles, the actual inventor or discoverer may have actually been driven more by altruistic motives than merely attempting to “make a buck”. Of course, being a capitalist does not necessitate that one must first hand-in their heart anymore than the socialists “prime directive” is the good of mankind.

Neal Lang
February 4, 2009
11:53 am
Let history speak for itself in this regard. All theoretical arguments aside: if socialism was implementable in our species, it wouldn’t have collapsed under the guise of Marxism in 1991.

John
February 4, 2009
1:09 pm
The inherent problem with Socialism is that ultimately, the final decision on many things lies upon someone other than yourself. Socialism takes away the concept of personal responsibility and puts it upon a community or a group of people. In that same way, the “community” is more important than “me”. Although this may be the case in some instances, you don’t have the ability to choose for yourself. The concept of free agency (freedom given to us by our creator, not government) is then removed and the freedoms upon which this great country was built on disappear. If my explanation is correct, the comment made by the commentator as Socialism being “un American” is true.

Augie
February 4, 2009
1:58 pm
Socialism and Communism are different. Socialism does not necessitate infringing on someone’s freedoms as a person, even though the fox news reporters framed it that way in the clip. Taking Norway as an example of a Democratic nation with a Socialist economy, you can very easily have a Socialist economy where the only downfall is that a doctor only has about 50% more income than the fishmonger down the street. Whether that takes away the initiative to invent, like Mark said above, is an interesting question. Not getting paid a ton of money wouldn’t deter me from curiosity or a desire to discover something, but that’s me. Either way, if you have a few capitalist economies filled with greedy inventors and a few socialist economies with people who don’t invent things that often then they don’t hurt the other economies. As far as the Constitution goes, there _is_ the First Amendment, granting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Socialism doesn’t mean denying people jobs, but it does take away the incentive of higher paying jobs. And as far as the Pursuit of Happiness, if to you that means having a bunch of money so you can have 5 really nice houses instead of one, then you should reevaluate what makes you happy. Sorry these reasons aren’t that good, I’ve kind of been up for the last 20 hours.

Blue
February 4, 2009
5:56 pm
I understand _both_ men! The initial and most serious problem is not with the concept of Constitution or America versus socialism. The problem they skip over in their zeal to defend their political ideologies is to provide a _definition_ of socialism.

It’s fair to say that what one means by socialism is “good things” and what the other means by socialism is “political and economic relationships based on marxist-engel and possibly leninist dogma, manifested via a political process at variance with that expressed in the Constitution as explained and defended in the Federalist Papers.”

Granted, “socialism” and “Constitution” are easier to say and more facily embraced.

Americans can root for socialism today because the government - presidents and senators primarily, as well as state governments - slacked off and allowed public schools to slack off from teaching the founding principles and founding ideas of our nation. Instead of defining our great moments, teachers began to berate America for her lapses, presenting those atypical lapses as typical.

American socialism will be like all other socialisms. The little guy will still be little, will struggle and not have much money. Meanwhile the “leaders” - president, Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State, senators, and so on - will accumulate more and more wealth from institutions that oppress the people with ever greater “fees” and “contributions” not to support programs, but to funnel _through_ the programs to those same political elite and corrupt politicians.

Congress has now reached the stage where it is as a whole a nest of treasonous traitors begging to be rooted out and replaced by better people who will voluntarily reduce the perks, privileges, pensions, and pay of our present ugly, avaricious, corrupt life-long can’t-do-anything-else politicians - congressional slum-lords.

Theodore Roosevelt
February 4, 2009
10:24 pm
I’m curious. Marx made some good points when he talked about alienation. God knows I’ve felt that. I’ve had more than a few jobs that left me feeling alienated. Socialism is very bad, but Marx knew what the working man despised…the master.

Troy Bowles
February 5, 2009
4:16 am
“Socialism does not necessitate infringing on someone’s freedoms as a person, even though the fox news reporters framed it that way in the clip. Taking Norway as an example of a Democratic nation with a Socialist economy, you can very easily have a Socialist economy where the only downfall is that a doctor only has about 50% more income than the fishmonger down the street.”

Your position is then that the government dictating what Norwegian doctor may charge for the fruits of the sweat of his brow is not an infringement on his unalienable right to his pursuit of happiness. Interesting take.

BTW, you will not find the government granting mankind their Creator endowed, unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our Constitution. These rights were instead recognized in the creating document of the our country, the Declaration of Indepenedence of the United States of America. Our Constitution merely formed a government (a “more perfect union”) in order to secure these Creator endowed rights. Therefore, it would be totally unconstitutional for the government of the United States to infringe a doctors unalienable right to charge as he so fit for the “sweat of his brow”.

Neal Lang
February 5, 2009
6:58 am
Socialist countries have free schools, free medical care, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and the ability to get rich. They study capitalism - they study us. They are egalitarian societies and are not perfect. If socialism and the practice of socialism were taught in this country, we would be having a more enlightened conversation.

Eleanor Roosevelt
February 5, 2009
8:01 am
“Socialism is very bad, but Marx knew what the working man despised…the master.”

Class Warfare starts with that “green-eyed monster”, Greed and soon becomes Envy. Marx was very clever in manipulating these “deadly sins” by appealing to man’s bases motivations. Of course, in the US if you dread being a worker, it extremely easy for anyone to take and risk their accumulated capital on starting their own venture and being their own boss. Socialism merely impedes the workers ability to be his own “master” by placing artificial governmental barriers to the accumulation and the utilitization of personal wealth.

Neal Lang
February 5, 2009
8:18 am
“Socialist countries have free schools, free medical care, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and the ability to get rich.”

There is no such thing as “free schools” and “free medical care”. Whatever gave you the idea that such exists?

As for indoctrinating our children into the benefits of sociaism, that is all our supposed “free” public school system does. In order to improve the debate on this subject, I suggest some serious reading would be beneificial, perhaps starting with some of the works of Ludwig von Mises, who demonstrates the REAL COSTS of Socialism on the human soul.

Neal Lang
February 5, 2009
8:33 am
[...] In response to the question, “What is wrong with socialism?” [...]

PBR: Aristotle on What is Wrong with Socialism « Acton Institute PowerBlog
February 20, 2009
12:57 pm
I suppose that I should admit to being a socialist, and to clarify my earlier remarks, I don’t actually despise it. But I do despise totalitarianism. I think a socialistic style of society is inevitable in today’s global world. I am hard-pressed to think of a better way to protect our planet.

One thing I do detest is simple Libertarianism. Liberty itself is one of our greatest gifts, but I believe that government is ideally a tool of the people, not an oppressor of the people. On the other hand, some control of public behavior is unedeniably necessary. Additionally, a refusal to provide public education is completely self-destructive and unrealistic. Are we better off forgoing taxes at the expense of an illiterate society? I think not.

The thought that keeping guns around the house in an effort to ward off government control is suicidal and most outdated. The idea of outgunning the government is extremely bizarre. Far better is the idea that citizens should become masters of the government. Ultimately, using firearms to defend oneself from the government will never become fruitful. Ordinary citizens can’t simply use tanks to defend themselves, but the government does have the means for this.
Troy

Troy Bowles
May 20, 2009
5:05 am
I don’t think that the US Government can use a tank against a private citizen and claim any moral justification. But the reality is that they have the ability to do so. Private citizens do not have this ability, unless you are a billiomaire. But still, the wealthiest indivituals in the world don’t possess the resources to fight against the US Government in a military capacity.

I am an ethicist by academic training, but I have to be a realist as well. I think we should just stop electing violence-oriented individuals to high positions. By that I mean right-oriented politicians who think bullets are the answer to the problem.

Troy Bowles
May 20, 2009
5:23 am
[...] The Acton Institute Power Blog reports: “The inspiration for this week’s question is a brief exchange on Fox News Channel, which includes Bob Beckel asking, ‘What is wrong with some form of socialism in certain areas?’” [...]

ADF Alliance Alert » What is Wrong with Socialism?
June 26, 2009
9:30 am