On Socialism

Jackart has an excellent post up on the subject of socialism; safe to say, he is not a fan of it:

I DON'T want to kill you if you disagree with me. Socialists do. Don't believe me? Go and talk to a true believer.

Whatever comments a socialist might make about Jackart's post, he certainly can't be accused of being ambiguous.

His starting point is the idea that socialism hasn't been tried before - a predictable line trotted out with tedious regularity by those on the left. Of course, socialism has been tried before, but what a lot of these socialist types mean is that a socialist utopia has never been achieved. Which is true, but also not surprising when you consider why such a supposed heaven on earth has never been realised - quite simply, it can't be.

You could argue that this is down to human nature - that humans aren't capable of sharing, and so socialism is not possible. I'd dispute this. I'd argue that humans aren't capable of being consistently forced to share at the behest of others without considerable protest, but that is a very different proposition to the first negative view of human nature outlined above. However, there is something within human nature that does damage the chances of ever realising a socialist utopia - namely, the reluctance of humans to give up power once it has been achieved.

This is an especially big problem within Marxism. See, Marx built a dictatorship into his plans to realise a socialist/communist utopia. And, in different parts of the world, a dictatorship did happen, designed to facilitate the move towards socialism. The problem is that the dictatorship proves to be anything other than transient - the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat lasted for over eight decades. The longevity of such dictatorships has nothing to do with the failure to have a worldwide socialist revolution. There have been stable socialist countries in the past where the state has resolutely failed to "wither away". The reason is, in part, that once people have got some power, they become very reluctant to lose it. Furthermore, there are always those dissenters who wish to pervert the country from achieving its socialist dystopian nightmare dream.

The problem is simple - socialism has access to a supposed "truth". A "truth" that will make things better for everyone. Yet it is clear that truth is relative, and very much at the mercy of the individualistic tendencies of humanity - individualistic tendencies that show no sign of going away, and indeed seem to be becoming more pronounced. So a socialist movement can win power promising to implement changes to make life better for everyone. But once they are in power, the problems start. Because not everyone is going to agree with them on the methods of achieving utopia, and not everyone is going to agree on what that utopia should look like. So the government needs to stay in power, and needs to protect itself from the non-believer. And that is when those of use who have issues with the economics and politics of socialism start to be stigmatised by the very state promising a better future for all.

To a large extent, there is little difference between socialism and religion, barring where they decide to locate their paradises (earth and the afterlife, respectively). The fanaticism shown by both socialists and religious people is because they think they have answer to that great "truth"; the reality is, such a truth - if it exists - is never going to be accepted by everyone. Which leaves both socialists and the religious with a big problem - what they are going to do with those who don't conform. With those who refuse to fall in with what is supposed to be a better way for all humanity. And takes us full circle, to where we started, since socialism all too often falls into the trap of suppressing freedom of choice and speech at the very least, and far too often ends in the gulag and the death camp.