Sleepless over socialism

The Insomniac takes issue with my assertion that socialism is evil; it's a well-written piece and, as such, deserves an answer.

[First off, the distinction between statism and socialism is an important though oft overlooked one. I believe that public services, such as health and education, can benefit from state ownership – but only under a democratic state. I believe that socialism has to sit alongside decentralisation and democratic participation in order to be effective...

Yes, except that a large state is required to act in a socialist way; in order to maintain order in an environment wherein many people resent your thieving of their goods, you need a large state to ensure control. Further, in a modern society, the sheer administration required to run a socialist country is such that the growth of the state is inevitable.

... And I see the current government as more statist than socialist]

Quite; this government is socialist and has expanded the state in order to maintain control, quod erat demonstrandum.

Take the Devil’s comment that “socialism relies on force” for example. He’s right, but only in so far as pretty much all economic systems beyond primitive bargaining rely on force in some way. Even under a completely minimalist system you still need a military/police force to ensure that property rights (which are an artificial by-product of organised society) are respected. So, unless the Devil is a closet anarchist rejecting the entire concept of “ownership”, this objection is a slightly hollow one.

Ha! Well, of course, we do have the problem of degree here (how big a state, etc. Obviously, I'd plump for the smallest possible; ideally, the state should run foreign policy, defence and the judiciary and... Well, that's about it, actually).

However, I think that there is a more crucial issue of consent. I contend that were you to ask every person in this country whether they wanted protection for their life and property, then all of them would say yes. Some morons would, no doubt, demand it as "part of my 'uman rights, innit."

If, on the other hand, you asked them whether they would be happy to give 40% of everything that they earn to "poor" families, then I think that you would get a very different response; there would certainly not be such a broad concensus in favour.

However, his real point seems to be that socialism is incompatible with human nature, and therefore requires a greater level of force to implement. I’m not so sure this is as self-evident as certain libertarians would like to believe. With complete privatisation of the education system and other public services, we’d see an increasingly fractured society with numerous different groups rubbing up alongside each other. This will inevitably lead to friction and conflict.

This is a matter of opinion, but I would disagree. Most importantly, I believe that a privatised education system (perhaps predicated on the same lines as Sweden's) would provide a far superior education for all and thus society would, in fact, be less fractured. It is certainly true that social mobility has dropped considerably over the last couple of decades, and a substantial cause of this has been education-based (most notably with the destruction of grammar schools).

Further, when we discuss the problems of foreign integration, there is endless talk about peoples "ghettoising themselves" and thus not mixing with other races, classes, etc. It could therefore be concluded that it would be beneficial for the "numerous different groups" to rub up against one another. Not only does it facilitate understanding but it also fosters contacts.

A capitalist system, with property rights and nation-states is also alien to basic human nature. All organised society is.

No; I entirely disagree with this. Since the beginning of time, man has been a pack animal, hunting and living in tribes. And indeed, ordered societies are natural: if we didn't have an ordered society, the voluntary trade that we libertarians are so enamoured of would be unable to happen.

So why do we have them? Because of the simple fact that individuals can get much further by co-operating than competing.

Absolutely, but libertarianism allows for this; in fact, libertarianism positively encourages voluntary cooperation: we call it trade.

This is the basic point where I think I diverge from the Devil’s thinking: where he sees selfishness as the primary motivation behind human behaviour, I see self-interest.

They are one and the same. As has been pointed out, when people trade voluntarily, they both benefit; otherwise they wouldn't do it.

With the former, socialism is impossible because pretty much all co-operation is impossible. With the latter, it’s not only possible but actually a fairly decent system because a strong and generally prosperous society aiming for equality of opportunity is the best launch-pad for any individual endeavours. We all operate in a social-economic environment which depends on those around us. The better educated the general public, the less prone we are to illness and the easier we find it to cope with economic ebbs and flows the better off we all are. It’s in my self-interest to push for measures that help others.

Yes, you may think that but others may not (and they will certainly disagree as to the extent to which they are willing to fund it), and herein lies the crux of the matter.

As soon as you decide that you are better of if everyone has equality of opportunity, then you want to implement strategies that will achieve this. But not everyone will agree with your vision. If you have the power of the state behind you, then you can coerce people to fund your grand vision and so you do.

And so socialism leads to force, and eventually to statism and then, all too often, to totalitarianism.

So whatever you think about the viability of collectivist projects, it’s hard to see how they can be regarded as inherently evil as the Devil seems to.

Quite apart from my logical follow-through above, collectivists ignore the lessons of history. They say things like, "Oh, Stalin didn't implement proper Communism" or "Communism isn't really socialism." They refuse to accept the lessons of history; they delude themselves and thus they allow themselves to be led down a path that killed hundreds of millions of people in the last century (and is still killing them now).

I believe that for Seamus Milne, for instance, wilfully to disregard the depredations of Communism is evil; for people to go to Cuba and deliberately close their eyes to the misery of the people there is evil. And these people do these things so that they can prop up their socialist dreams, despite the fact that socialism has failed wherever it has been tried.

To ignore the lessons of history in a way that will lead to death and misery on a grand scale is, I contend, evil.