Democratic Socialism?
by Dr. Doug Cardell
Several folks have asked me to discuss democratic socialism. The short answer is it's an oxymoron. Democracy and socialism are incompatible. Whenever someone makes a statement like that, someone else brings up the Nordic countries, Great Britain, or Canada. None of these countries are socialist. Socialism is an economic system in which the state owns the property and the means of production. The Nordic countries, Great Britain and Canada, call themselves social democracies. They all enjoy free-market capitalism as their basic economic structure but have a more extensive public welfare system than some other countries. Some of them have socialized medicine; that is, the government has nationalized or taken ownership of the healthcare system. Some have nationalized the education system. Is this sustainable, or will they eventually have to choose between free markets and true socialism? It's too early to tell. Experiments like this take decades to play out. However, the Democratic Socialist Party says democratic socialism is a waypoint leading to genuine socialism. So, now that we have dealt with that objection, we are ready to address the original question; can socialism be the economic system of a democratic country? Of course, a democratic government can and has elected socialists, and some have established socialist governments. But unfortunately, some elected socialists have quickly taken all power and become dictatorships, and the ones that have not have been voted out and returned to free markets. Why does this happen? To understand this requires a relatively complete understanding of socialism as a system and the constraints it imposes. It also involves understanding two different worldviews. Whether you believe them or not, understanding the worldview of the world's major religions is essential. All these religions believe that humans do not always work and play well with others and therefore require religious and/or government control to keep the peace. Therefore, these religions all have codes of laws to achieve a peaceful society and support governments enforcing these and a limited number of other laws and regulations. However, they acknowledge that governments are composed of humans who are as flawed as those they govern and, therefore, must require careful monitoring. The socialist worldview holds that humans only misbehave due to society, including religions, and free-market capitalism exploiting them. They believe that if everyone experienced equal outcomes in the world, as outlined in John Lennon's song, "Imagine," there would be world peace at all levels. Lennon imagines a world with no religions, countries, or possessions. But equal outcomes are inherently unequal. At first glance, that makes no sense, but giving everyone the same things means that many will get something they don't want or care about, and others will not get items that are important to them. Providing everyone with the same goods and services denies each person's unique humanity. For a more complete discussion, see my article, "Value and Worth." Furthermore, when socialists take power, their flawed humanity has always come to the surface, the people are made poorer, and the elite rulers live in luxury. There is absolutely no objective evidence to support their worldview. On the contrary, all the evidence seems to reinforce the idea that humans will not work and play well with others without a means of regulating their behavior. Society is not the creator of individual misbehavior; society exists to mitigate it. So, how does the socialist worldview lead to authoritarianism? It begins with the nationalization of the nation's industries and the seizure of private property. Once the government has taken over the means of production, it becomes responsible for creating and marketing all consumer goods. According to the US Small Business Administration estimates, almost one-third of new businesses fail in two years, half in the first five years, and two-thirds in the first ten. If the government creates the enterprises, then most of their plans would also be expected to fail in ten years. Because of the high failure rate, the government tends to be cautious to a fault, bypassing many terrific ideas. Capitalists are free to take more risks than the government because they risk their money, not the people's. The willingness of capitalists to take significant risks has led to the creation of virtually all of the life-enhancing products we enjoy daily. In a free market, many entrepreneurs try to develop products or services they think people want, but many fail. However, under government control, all the eggs are in one basket, so it's all or nothing. The capitalists are the ones that fund the entrepreneurs. They take a considerable risk when investing their money into a new, unproven venture. If the enterprise fails, the capitalists take all the loss, but the people take the loss when the government's plans fail. After taking control of the national economy, the government employs 'experts' to plan every detail of the economy. Unfortunately, this expert planning has a fatal flaw; you cannot plan what you cannot predict. For a more detailed discussion, see my article "Economic Error." So the planning goals are continually undermined by human action. The experts create a five-year plan but find that the people don't always like what the experts decide the people should have. Some people don't work as hard as the plan calls for. These experts often find that changing conditions mean their plans don't work out. To solve these problems, the government takes greater control of people's lives. They decide who does what job, who lives in what house, and what goods are allotted to each individual. This extraordinary control leads to a discontent citizenry that would vote for something else if given a chance. When the government sees the writing on the wall, meaningful elections disappear. Those running the government are committed to socialism and will not allow an election that threatens to replace it. Instead, the people may get to vote for a choice between candidates who are both pledged to continue the current system but not to retrieve their freedom. This attempt to control the citizenry is not only inhumane, it can never work. For more on this topic, see my article "Spontaneous Order." Since government experts are the only ones creating products, there are no competing products. This economic hegemony means there is only one product for every need. One make of car, one kind of telephone, one kind of computer, one kind of bread; there is no consumer choice of product, only government choice. This lack of choice almost always leads to a black market, an underground free market that attempts to get what the people want to the people. However, these violators, if they are caught, are locked up or killed. Since the world's major religions place a supreme being as one's first loyalty, the government either outlaws or suppresses religion so that the head of government, the supreme leader, becomes the citizenry's first loyalty. However, these repressions of the populace fail to solve the problem, so the government imposes still greater controls on the people. When people object to these oppressions, they are imprisoned or killed. Socialist governments have killed over a hundred million people in their attempts to stifle dissent and incarcerated millions more. People begin to flee the country to freer areas. This results in rigid border restrictions. This difference in border security may be the most severe indictment of socialist regimes. Countries with free-market capitalism police their borders to prevent unauthorized entry, but socialist countries police their borders to prevent citizens from escaping. As a result, people risk their lives to get into capitalist countries or get out of socialist countries. Here's a first hand account from an escapee from "North Korea". The progression of increasing government control under socialism is unavoidable. Economic control must always lead to total control because economic freedom is critical to personal liberty. There can be no individual freedom once economic freedom is lost.
If you found this article stimulating, please share it with other folks who might enjoy it. And please share your thoughts below. Dr. Cardell would love to hear from you.
Responses
Nailed it!!