Why Socialism Means Dictatorship
Over at Jackart’s place there has been some fierce debate over socialism versus capitalism, mainly with those of a right-wing disposition taking on the laughably naïve Sugarhoney. Now political ideology is something I have studied extensively, so I thought I would throw a couple of thoughts into the debate.
Jackart writes “Socialism is Communism writ small”, which is pretty much spot on. Both socialism and communism want to achieve the same aim – the end of the capitalist way of life (and, btw, liberal democracy). Their key disagreements lie in how that is to be achieved. Communism (as created by the hopelessly wrong Karl Marx) sees the end of capitalism occurring because of a violent revolution and a subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat*. Socialism, as advocated not only by purists such as Eduard Bernstein but also all those of a Social Democratic ilk, sees the creation of the socialist state through piecemeal reform and through undemocratic, economically damaging institutions such as Trade Unions. The means are different – the end is the same. The end of capitalism and, as a result, dictatorship and society based on misery for all.
See, the problem with socialist and communist ideology comes down to their perceptions of human nature. They see human beings as, in some way, perfectible. They think that, given the right circumstances, human beings will be reborn as generous, giving beings who are happy to make every effort in all parts of their life to share the proceeds with their neighbour, regardless of what the neighbour has done. In the crushingly naïve view of the socialist, the perfected human will be more than happy to adhere to the Marxist maxim “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”
Of course, people don’t work like that. Humans are capable of acts of great goodness and generosity. They are also capable of acts of extreme selfishness and greed. The instinct of humanity is to get the best for the individual and the individual’s loved ones. If strangers can be happy as well, all well and good – but the happiness of others is not the main motivating factor of the average human. People want to acquire, and they want to have their efforts rewarded. The only way that you can fight that instinct is through the state interfering and compelling people towards the more socialist way of thinking. That is why thousands of kulaks starved in Stalin’s collective farms. Stalin tried to compel them to be communists. In doing so, he forced them to act against their instincts, removed their freedom and led to many of them dying.
Jackart also writes:
“Fascism is merely a better dressed form of communism. So does it matter whether its the Jews or the Kulaks who got exterminated - Surely they're both still people? Both creeds are equally evil.”
I would agree with this as well. We have to stop thinking about this debate as being between right and left. It isn’t. It is the difference between freedom and state control. The only real difference between socialism/communism and fascism/Nazism** is the ideology they pay lip service to. They both take the chance to interfere in the lives of their people, they both remove the freedom of the citizens in an attempt to make them conform to an idealised and incorrect view of humanity. I always find it very telling that Nazism is, technically, National Socialism. Socialism with a Nationalist bent. The far ends of the political spectrum are Libertarianism (be it capitalist or anarchist) and Dictatorship (be it socialist, communist or fascist).
Basically you’ve got a choice. You can have a society where everyone is free to go out and make the best of their lives, in what ever subjective way in which the citizens view success. Some will be happy, some won’t. But that have, to a large extent, the choice. Or you can have a society where the government tries to control every element of the citizens’ life and where everyone is equally miserable, barring the tiny ruling elite. Liberal Capitalism versus Socialism – the choice is literally as stark as freedom versus dictatorship.
Therefore, if you are a socialist – like Sugarhoney and the glaringly ignorant Terry Kelly - you are not a democrat and you support dictatorship and misery.
Quite simple when you sit down and think about it, really.
*And please don’t tell me that Lenin, Stalin and all the other bastards who ran the Soviet Union were some sort of departure from classic Marxism. They aren’t. Everything they did – every evil, brutal act – was explicitly condoned by Marx by him advocating of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. And don’t give me “oh, well, Lenin et al weren’t members of the working class”. That may be the case, but Marx explicitly stated that the working class would be joined by members of the other classes as the violent revolution drew near – middle class people like Lenin would become part of the proletariat as the dictatorship of the proletariat loomed.
**Aside from the fact that communism has a far higher death toll. I’m not condoning Nazism of the Holocaust in anyway, but fundamentally murdering someone in a concentration camp is the same as murdering someone in a Gulag. The crime is the same – murder. And I am disgusted by murder in whatever form it takes, regardless of the ideology or reasoning behind it.
Labels: Capitalism, Communism, Freedom, Ideology
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home