Tag Archives: Marx

The Top Ten Reasons Why Socialism is Wrong

0187-socialism-logo1-366x366

1. Marx’s Labor Theory of Value, adapted from Ricardo, is wrong. Work is not exploitation and profit is not theft. (For more on this subject see Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.)

2. Historical Materialism begs the question of human agency. It is unexplained how socialists come to have consciousness that is “authentic,” while capitalists have “false consciousness.” Marx’s theory underplays the role of ideas and ethics in economies (i.e. the “superstructure” of the economy that is but a reflection of materialist forces).

3. There is the unresolved question of how classes arose to begin with. Did they arise through the use of coercion to repress lower classes? Did they arise due to inequalities in human characteristics?Did classes arise because of the private ownership of the means of production? If so, then why are there social classes or castes in countries that have cooperative, collective, or tribal social-economic arrangements?

4. Marxism is a self-stultifying ideology that renders life meaningless. Mankind’s desire to achieve is obviously due to human nature, and not materialist forces. It is no coincidence that socialist societies lead to high levels of anomie and alienation, contrary to Marxist claims to the contrary that capitalism causes such social effects. The reason such maladies are prevalent in socialist countries is because social valuation of the individual is diminished to nearly nothing.

5. Marx’s theory of historical materialism and the “inevitable triumph of socialism,” is obviously flawed. Socialism lasting any considerable period of time in a polity has always developed due to Marxist-Leninist or Maoist radicals ushering in bloody putsches or coup d’etats in economically backwards states. This is the opposite of what Marx predicted. Marxism predicted that there would be spontaneous worker’s revolts in advanced capitalist societies around the globe, and not elite-organized socialist “revolutions” in backwards countries like Russia and China. World War I exposed the false notion held by socialists that the war would lead to a worker’s strike and mass defections from the armies due to “workers’ solidarity.”

6. Marx’s claim that the “Iron Law of Wages” would lead inexorably to a decline in standard of living among the proletariat tending towards subsistence living is incorrect. In the most advanced capitalist states, the standard of living increased ever upwards. This is because an economy based on mass production leads to cheaper goods and a competitive labor market buoys demand and wages for skilled labor. The counter-argument that the standard of living increased due to labor unions is obviously false in the U.S.; labor unions in America have always been relatively weak and many times unions claim labor improvements that arose due to market competition. One former union boss who spoke at an Occupy DC rally recently confessed that “progressive labor is a revolutionary communist organization.” Unions are a type of labor cartel that makes profitable businesses increasingly unfeasible.

7. Equality of means has not been achieved in any socialist state of any kind in world history. Every single socialist state has been led by elites with a miserable underclass far underfoot. I defy a socialist to name one counterfactual. The underclass is typically lied to (e.g. offered “Bread, land and peace,” but receiving none of the sort), and the disparity between rich and poor actually increases after the “revolution.” So ironically, socialist policies lead to greater inequality of means, rather than more equality. For more on why socialist systems always lead to oppression, see Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy.”

8. The fraudulent obsession with equality espoused by socialists was perhaps best summed up by Margaret Thatcher, who in a speech to the socialist opposition, demonstrated the absurdity of her opponents’ position. While gesticulating with her fingers to illustrate her concept visually, she showed that “(Socialists) would rather the poor be poorer, provided the rich were less rich.” [See: “Margaret Thatcher on Socialism” on YouTube.]

9. Socialism is only a critique of capitalism and not a self-sufficient economic system. It advises how to redistribute wealth, but not how to create it. Socialists are unable to persuasively answer the “then what?” question of what happens when capitalism is destroyed or it collapses. Apparently, eternal prosperity ensues, but the causal linkage is not adequately explained.

10. Socialism is not consistent with human nature. Human beings are not innately altruists, because as a species, mankind is driven by the desire to procreate, and all that seminal act entails. Societies have succeeded based on hunting, gathering, production, and even war, but redistribution is a static and deteriorating model of economic organization.

The implication of modeling an economic system on socialist redistribution for the contrived ethic of “equality” is no less than the destruction of civilization itself. And this is by design. Marx set out to foment world revolution prior to developing the philosophical system that justified it. As Marx quoted Goethe in the Eighteenth Brumaire, “All that exists deserves to perish.”

Father Government: Federalizing Childcare

Even though she was evicted from her position as Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is still trying to tell us how to run our own houses. Her latest frightful commitment to the American people is that if the Democrats are re-elected in 2012 “we will do to childcare what we did to healthcare.” As if that’s a good thing.

The list of all that could go wrong in a country that provides free childcare is lengthy, but modeling such a program after Obamacare would be even more disastrous. Imagine a world where all parents are mandated to go back to work after having children, where it would be criminal to stay at home and raise your child yourself. Sounds a little like a piece of dystopian literature, doesn’t it?

This is not a new idea for Democrats. In fact, it’s one that began a very long time ago with free government education. K-12 morphed into government-funded pre-K programs, and now has evolved into the government wanting unfettered access to the minds of our children from birth. The Democrats, especially, want to indoctrinate our children to believe that Government is the true parent of all people in this country.

The concept of free “public” (read: government-funded) education for all originates in the famed Marxist document, the Manifesto of the Communist Party. This should raise the first flag. The Manifesto further decries one of its basic tenets as, “Abolition of the family!” Isn’t that precisely what the Democrats are working towards with the latest anti-family idea? On merit, yes, it is a better idea to have an educated population than an uneducated one. As an educator by trade, I cannot dispute that intellectual fact. I challenge the notion, however, that the government should be in charge of it. Competition drives excellence, and government control of anything quells competition.

Practically, free childcare for all does seem to fill a need that exists for all parents. This is where it is likely to gain public support. It’s not easy to make the decision to spend $1,000 a month from a $2,000 paycheck (after federal taxes, of course) for someone to keep our children all day while we work. For many, the financial equation just doesn’t make sense. As a result, many choose to forgo their career for a while and stay home with their children, and they make financial sacrifices until their children are school-aged. Others choose to stay home and raise their young children because they actually want to.

I know it may surprise some on the left, but there are people who have children because they actually planned a two-parent family and want to nourish that family by doing the hard work themselves. They want to work hard to provide for their spouse and children. They want to choose the best pediatricians to treat their babies when they’re sick. They want to save money and build a nest-egg that can be passed on to their children and grandchildren. They want to build a family business, despite the fact that it will require 80-hour work weeks. They want their children involved in the business, so they can teach them sound fiscal principles.

They want the government to get out of their way, so they can do these things that will make their lives meaningful. These family-centric Americans are perfectly willing to accept the personal responsibility for their decisions, even the failure that sometimes comes with autonomy.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the percent of the population that wants Father Government to be their provider. Can’t feed your children? Never fear, Father Government will come to the rescue. Lost your job and tired of looking for a new one? Don’t bother, because you can still have a car, a TV, a cell phone, even a home thanks to Father Government.

Personal responsibility seems to be the antithesis of how government operates. Even big corporations (i.e., General Motors and Solyndra) can now rely on the government to keep them from failing. Failure is ok, people. It builds character. Teach your children this. Teach them that once they reach voting age the only person they should expect to rely on when it comes to feeding, clothing and providing shelter for them is THEM. We need to stop asking what else our country can do for us, and begin recognizing all that we are perfectly capable of doing for ourselves.