Posted on 12/28/2014 6:00:12 AM PST by theBuckwheat
From Socialism, by Ludwig von Mises (1951, Originally written in German, 1932)
Part V, Deconstructionism, Chapter I, The Motive Powers of Desconstructionism, Section 1, The nature of deconstructionism.
To the socialist, the coming of Socialism means a transition from an irrational to a rational economy. Under Socialism, planned management of economic life takes the place of anarchy of production; society, which is conceived as the incarnation of reason, takes the place of the conflicting aims of unreasonable and self-interested individuals. A just distribution replaces an unjust distribution of goods. Want and misery vanish and there is wealth for all-- so the laws of historical evolution tell us-- we, or at least our heirs, must at length inherit. For all history lead to that promised land, and all that has happened in the past has only prepared the way for our salvation.
This is how our contemporaries see Socialism, and they believe in its excellence. It is false to imagine that the socialist ideology dominates only those parties which call themselves socialist or – what is generally intended to mean the same thing – “social”. All present-day political parties are saturated with the leading socialistic ideas. Even the stoutest opponents of Socialism fall within its shadow. They, too, are convinced that the socialist economy is more rational than the capitalist, that it guarantees a juster distribution of income, that historical evolution is driving man inexorably in that direction. When they oppose Socialism they do so with the sense that they are defending selfish private interests and that they are combating a development which from the standpoint of public welfare is desirable and is based upon the only ethically acceptable principle. And in their hearts they are convinced that their resistance is hopeless.
Yet, the socialist idea is nothing but grandiose rationalization of petty resentments. Not one of its theories can withstand scientific criticism and all its deductions are ill-founded. Its conception of the capitalist economy has long been seen to be false; it plan of a future social order proves to be inwardly contradictory, and therefore impracticable. Not only would Socialism fail to make economic life more rational, it would abolish social co-operation outright. That it would bring justice is merely an arbitrary assertion, arising, as we can show, from resentment and the false interpretation of what takes place under Capitalism. And that historical evolution leaves us no alternative but Socialism turns out to be a prophecy which differs from chiliastic dreams of primitive Christian sectarians only in its claim to the title 'science'.
In fact Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created. Since the socialist order of society cannot exist, unless it be as a fragment of Socialism within an economic order resting otherwise on private property, each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.
Such a policy of destructionism means the consumption of capital. There are few who recognize this fact. Capital consumption can be detected statistically, and can be conceived intellectually, but it is not obvious to everyone. To see the weakness of a policy which raises the consumption of the masses at the cost of existing capital wealth, and thus sacrifices the future to the present, and to recognize the nature of this policy, requires a deeper insight than then that vouchsafed to statesmen and politicians or to the masses who have put them into power. As long as the walls of the factory buildings stand, and the trains continue to run, it is supposed that all is well with the world. The increasing difficulties of maintaining the higher standard of living are ascribed to various causes, but never to the fact that a policy of capital consumption is being followed.
In the problem of the capital consumption of a destructionist society we find one of the key problems of the socialist economic policy....
From pages 457-457 in the (free) PDF version. Link: http://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis
Why didn’t minds like this make their way into our universities? Instead, we got all the asshats from the Frankfurt School. I don’t think we will ever recover.
Defining “just” distribution is always the challenge and why socialism fails every time it is tried.
ping
Mises should get a posthumous Nobel in economics. One can dream.
What I find interesting is that when this book was originally written in 1932, socialism was still being justified because it would make the economy run better. Now it is justified because it would make society more “just”. Of course what goes unsaid is that the socialist elites expect to have the monopoly power on defining what is just and what is not. This is how they were forced to shift their message in light of the horrible destruction of life and property over the decades in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, The People’s Republic of China, North Korea, all of which at one time or another attempted to achieve the perfect Marxist economies.
But this river of blood and tears has not stopped people like those at the head of the (D) party (and sadly many at the head of the (R) party too) from doing all they could to advance the socialist mindset here.
When you quote Mises or Hayek at a leftist, he/she will run for the garlic, a mirror and a stake. Those are the only economists the left actually dreads and fears: Their writings cause the left both traumatizing public embarrassment and painful cognitive dissonance in the privacy of their heads.
You could Friedman to that list for a trifecta.
Oh there is a dream come true, in a pigs eye, but hey in our world...
Yes, and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds really fair and wonderful, until you realize that a faceless bureaucrat gets to decide what your ability is, and what your needs are!
Good stuff, thanks for sharing!
This helps explain why leftists are unwilling to condemn jihadis: they are both dedicated to destructionism and regress. They both operate by the motive of raw power.
Lord Acton said that "liberty is the delicate fruit of a mature civilization." These groups are dedicated to consuming the fruit, cutting off the branches, and stunting civilization.
Don't get me started.
Exactly. It is neither just nor fair to steal from individuals the proceeds gained, i.e., financial and other private property accumulated, through time and by education, experience, effort, mistakes, labor, creativity, invention, investments, diligence, persistence and inheritance, and reallocates by force those proceeds to unnamed others by unnamed others, none of whom had any part in the creation of those proceeds or good results.
If unnamed others were indeed to "justly" or "rightly" lay claim to these good results from individuals and thereby steal from the producers and offspring for whom individuals strive to provide necessities and comforts, the very incentive to do more and produce more, or cause to be produced, is also stolen.
The reverse of the argument equally cannot be said to be either just or right to force unnamed others to reimburse individuals or entities for their failings and shortcomings. This country has done that, by the way, a la welfare and "too big to fail."
How just or right is it when 47% of the population is now provided the incentive to live in perpetual welfare and are, in effect, stealing from the hard work of a shrinking number of producers, from cradle to grave?
How just or right is it when banks or corporations engage in unsound, illegal, and risky business practices knowing that the elitists in the District of Criminals will steal tax dollars from hard working individuals and reward these unnamed others for their immoral and poor choices by bailing them out?
In both cases, it begets feelings of entitlement and greed and leads to laziness, selfishness, corruption, and filthy lucre with a multitude of unnamed others.
In both cases, it rewards what is immoral and punishes what is virtuous for all because that is the result of both socialism and communism.
“A HARD rain is gonna fall”... actually is already falling..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4sMSSm0x2A
Along with capital decumulation,which leads to economic stagnation or regression,which leads to progressive impoverishment,a policy of government control over production and distribution is destructive, also, because it leads to economic chaos,a system of forced labor for some,aristocratic privilege for others,the necessity of terror, force, and brutality,and totalitarian tyranny.
I have most of Mises books. I would easily rate his genius to be equal to that of Einstein.
He was a towering intellect. He was also very humble.
He is the one who turned Hayek away from Fabian Socialism.
I do too. It is a masterpiece. I have most of Mises works. Human Action is another masterpiece, although a difficult read.
Bureacracy is another great read -- a small book.
It is also a cover for Tyranny...imho.
Our universities are filled with vile evil leftists.
When Von Mises came to America he could not get any teaching position at any prestigious university. Even back then the leftists socialist professors dominated our Econ departments.
He has to accept a lowly position at, I believe, NYC University.
Von Mises was pure genius.
If I were in charge, people on welfare or food stamps would not be able to vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.