Barking Cats

A visitor to this website, Bruce Schmiechen, berates me for my "profound ignorance." You can read his (unedited) letter at Sages Pages. Of course I am not the least bit disturbed by this chap's charge that I displayed "shallow, right-wing triumphalism" in my previous Conning Tower, Leaving the Left. He knows damn well I ain't ignorant. He wouldn't be so agitated if I were merely some nutcase screamer.

But my ignorance really isn't the issue, is it? I certainly don't want to argue about which of us is ignorant. That's a mug's game. I'll unearth the issues Schmiechen buried under a load of abuse of me and John Leo. I won't answer for Mr. Leo. I think he can take care of himself...more

I still find it a little hard to present an air-tight intellectual proof that socialism can never work, although I'm familiar with most of the arguments.

What's more immediately persuasive to me, is that it's been tried, dozens of times, and it always ends up the same way: in bloodshed, failure, and disaster. So, if you think that the laws of probability have any meaning, that's a pretty good, simple, and immediately understandable argument.

Problem is, these guys all subscribe to Lenin's omelet and egg theory. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. By definition, these eggs are all reactionary, and all reactionaries are evil. QED.

That's one reason why leftists say that, although there's no such thing as good and evil, somehow all conservatives or people who think differently than they do are evil.

I still find it a little hard to present an air-tight intellectual proof that socialism can never work, ..........

Of course you know that you would be attempting to prove a negative, very difficult if not impossible, and air-tight intellectual proof is just as difficult. However, if anyone could do it I would bet on you.

I think voluntary communes may work, especially if there was freedom to opt out at any time. How about the Amish? Larger groups would include more diversity and be more difficult. Being forced to participate would make it impossible, as it has been in the historical cases you mentioned.

On the micro-scale, socialism -- "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" -- can work. Indeed, it does work, as every family operates more or less that way.

The key insight is David Friedman's categorization of the modes of human interaction. There are only three:

Love
Trade
Force

When all the persons in a micro-economy love one another, socialism can work. Indeed, it will work naturally; love is that condition in which the needs, interests and general happiness of another person are indistinguishable from one's own, so negotiation and pricing structures never arise. Socialism fails when the parties to the economy possess individual interests and objectives not subservient to the bonds of love -- basically, anything larger than an extended family. Communes can work for these reasons.

Trade is the method of freedom, which prevails among persons who don't (necessarily) love each other, but who are not malevolently disposed toward one another. Once malevolence enters the picture, we resort to force; it's the only method compatible with a desire to hurt someone.

Socialism takes force -- the method of warfare -- and applies it to economics. In all important respects, it militarizes production and exchange.

Ludwig von Mises and others have analyzed socialism's inability to deal with changing individual preferences and priorities -- the "information problem." Ultimately, though, it all boils down to love, trade, or force.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

If the prooof you want is logical proof, deductive proof, you should try reading the great Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, first published in 1922 and reissued many times since them.

But there is ambiguity in the word "work." Communism/socialism has built-in contradictions--no prices, to begin with--but the Soviet version lasted, after a fshion for 74 years. Did it work? The Swedish version is impoverishing its people. Does it work?

Poretto, your site is interesting, well-done.

When all the persons in a micro-economy love one another, socialism can work...Socialism fails when the parties to the economy possess individual interests and objectives not subservient to the bonds of love

Wow, this seems like a powerful insight.

Poor socialists. On some level they must know that socialism requires love to work, but they're confused about what to do about it. Rather than accept the fact that people aren't going to love each other and look for a solution that takes this into account, they try to force people to love each other -- and it just doesn't work. In fact, the consequences can be pretty disasterous.

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.