Chapter 3 – The Basis and Philosophy of Socialism
The starting-point of socialist doctrine is the criticism of the bourgeois order of society.
-- Ludwig von Mises1 Socialism is the philosophical, esoteric, and unsuccessful societal system based upon central control of the means of production and abrogation of private property, propagated by deceit and deception.
It subjugates the individual to the interests of the state.
The socialist way and type of thinking run counter to individual thought, action, incentive, and self-reliance.
The most exhaustive, accurate and well-described observations about Socialism I could find are in the writings of Ludwig von Mises. He reported the similarity of Socialism and Communism.2 He wrote, “In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are synonymous.” Socialists outwardly detest the association of their philosophy with communism. But an enlightening footnote in Ludwig von Mises’s Socialism states:3 The term ‘Communism’ (Marxism) signifies just the same as ‘Socialism.’ The use of these two titles has repeatedly changed during the last few decades (1930s to 1960s) but only political tactics separated socialists from communists. They both aim to socialize the means of production. (Italics mine) And A. J. Galambos wrote: Neither communism nor socialism is revolutionary; they are both reactionary. They both go back into the darkest of ages of controlling property. They’re not evolutionary either, because left to their own devices people will not evolve into either system. This has to be done be external cooperation of an artificial and manufactured sort.4 Restated in the words of Robert L. Bartley, who recently described the work of Friedrich von Hayek in the “Opinion” section of The Wall Street Journal, “Fascism and communism are the more virulent cousins of socialism.”5 The believers in socialist philosophy in this country subvert moral standards, education, and the Constitution of the United States, all because they disagree with the concept, strength, and success of Capitalism. The communists add guns to achieve their power and call their form of Socialism, Communism. Von Mises is accurate; their common goal then is to control production (business) and the means to achieve it by political regulation and to exercise control over all the people in society by making them economically ‘equal.’ They both aim to achieve control over men’s (and women’s) lives, property, and liberty. To accomplish this, they both work to abolish the ownership of private property, gradually by the socialists, rapidly by ‘revolution’ with the communists. State ownership is the full, deadweight burden carried by a labor force that is harnessed to the demands of central planning. As we know, the former Soviet system concentrated huge wealth and power in the hands of a few. It still works that way in Russia. A few oligarchs in collaboration with old KGB constituents run the country.
A word here on the word revolution is pertinent. The word came into common usage to mean the forceful overthrow of government when the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, and is now used when talking about such political takeovers elsewhere in the world. But the literal definition of revolution is to revolve or turn around. A.J. Galambos7 called attention to the American Revolution as a “turning around” of thinking, that the idea of independence from the King of England was necessary. The resulting conflict was a “war of independence” not a “revolution.” Galambos maintained that all the other overthrows or so-called ‘revolutions’ were nothing but political regime changes, which did not constitute a turning around or change of thinking or goals.
I wish to quote here a devoted American’s observation: Our Declaration of Independence has been copied by emerging nations around the globe, its themes adopted in places many of us have never heard of. Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain Godgiven rights. We the people declared that the people for their own convenience create government. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted it by the people.
There have been revolutions before and since ours, revolutions that simply exchanged one set of rulers for another.
Ours was a philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government.
--Ronald Reagan, Address at Yorktown, October 19, 1981 Denigrating criticism of all aspects of the capitalistic system is the main oratory of the proponents of Socialism. Though it is easy to see that criticism is a major tool of Socialism, the worldwide effectiveness and acceptance of this philosophy is an astounding phenomenon. Nevertheless, a clear exposition of the true nature of a socialist society most probably would have dampened the enthusiasm of the masses that have accepted the ‘religion’ of Socialism.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that criticism is to the socialist (‘liberal’) as faith is to the religious person. Have the Democrats made a concerted study of this effective tool of Socialism, or is their use of it merely mechanistic? This stratagem is right out of the ‘textbook’ of the socialist and Marxist methods.
Remember the tactics of Marx and Engels to their opponents; they “insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them.” In debate or discussion, to assail the opposing person dilutes the verbal controversy, and that leaves the accusing one open to criticize accurate information and sources and to hide behind affronting allegations. In my public speaking class in college, our instructor taught us that a disingenuous person can have a debate advantage over an honest one, because insincerity plays by a different set of rules (expediency and half truths) and is almost always unwilling to accept accurate definitions.
Further, the insincere discussant, by continually questioning the validity of his opponent’s facts, can press that opposing debater to be defensive. While that one is on defense, those of questionable agendas can be on the offensive, and then their oftenspurious reasons of argument can be advanced with arrogant confidence. Sound familiar?
In that college speech class we had to learn that we must always be perceptively alert and confident of our facts and sources and then be courageous and resourceful in holding our position. A respected psychiatrist once told me that the human mind has an infinite capacity for justifying. Opinionated persons claim any justification they can think of to advance their point of view.
The first cousin to criticism is opposition. And what do we hear daily from the ‘liberals’ at the conservatives? Negative CRITICISM! This has to be more than mere coincidence.
I am referring to their opposition to anything that advances Capitalism. Criticize, oppose; oppose, criticize, then block and divert. It may not be so obvious immediately, but the path to the success of ‘liberals’ is to control the attainments of unencumbered Capitalism and hinder the conservatives who attempt to preserve them. This translates also to opposition to the institutions of the United States.
The ‘liberals’ must also oppose judges who would uphold the Constitution, because if they do not, their potential hold and control of institutions and peoples’ lives (and freedoms) are weakened or jeopardized. Their preoccupation with negating the established system, which is based upon the personal efforts of each individual to achieve success, helps them avoid facing their own philosophical weakness. But, it promotes their push for power in order to control and change society to their concept of societal order.
Opposition has taken a new form recently. The actions accused of the Bush Administration by the ‘liberals’ (socialists), in reality comprise the very program of the Democratic Party in this surprisingly negative, early campaign for the November 2004 elections.
This is a new twist to the tactic of attacking the person to ridicule and “traduce the opponent;” just simply accuse the opponent’s program of preposterous action, which in fact is your own program. This sounds strikingly like the example expressed to me in 1951 in Berlin regarding the tactic of the communists: “They steal the silverware off the banquet table before anyone notices that the ware is gone, and then they loudly accuse someone else of taking it.” In a recent speech, former Vice-President Al Gore8 accused the Bush administration of “exploiting Americans’ fear of terrorism for political gain.” He ranted further, “the Bush administration has been preoccupied with an ‘assault on civil liberties’ since the Sept. 11 attacks and has not done enough to make the nation safer.” He proceeded to say, “They (the administration) have taken us much further down the road toward an intrusive ‘big brother’ style of government than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States.” He is accusing the administration of ‘stealing the silverware.’ Strains credulity! Shelby Steele9 wrote “There was a summary indictment of America that emerged in the 1960s by a convergence of many social protest movements – civil rights, anti-war, feminism, environmentalism, farm workers’ protests, etc.” The compound effect of all this protest was to cast America as a “spiritually empty, greedy, racist, and imperialistic nation; i.e., a malevolent force in the world.” This produced an especially powerful source of so-called ‘moral authority’ for those in opposition to the basic culture of America.
Steele observed further “This Anti-Americanism is a reflexive and smug faithlessness in the moral character of America. It has found its political home on the Left, and nowhere more securely than in the precincts of academe.” (Italics mine) Out of this mind-set developed the concept of racial preferences (affirmative action) and other anti- individualist schemes.
Groupthink is the practice of approaching problems or issues as situations, which are best dealt with by consensus of a group rather than by individuals acting independently. The criticism of America and her system of free enterprise resembles groupthink, but groupthink results in faulty decision-making because its characteristics of consensus are ignored as a threat to the group that is in charge. For instance, groupthink was in full play when the NY Stock Exchange board of directors made bonus and retirement decisions for Mr. Grasso and his lieutenants.
In the final analysis, groupthink is nothing more than collective arrogance, and it is a huge problem in most political venues that are populated by self-important and smug politicians who think that they cannot be held personally responsible for their collective decisions. Gray Davis is a notable example of such overconfident thinking and miscalculated belief.
When Robert Owen’s experiment with socialism failed* in 1827 he finally concluded that since Socialism could not occur on its own, it would be necessary to change society by political (coercive) means to achieve it. François Babeuf, an early French reactionary, as well as Fourier, Engels and Marx also understood that Socialism could only be achieved through the power of the state.
From the perspective of freedom and Capitalism, the socialists’ admission that their system requires coercion to be achieved should certainly frighten those who think that they can make small concessions with Socialism and that business entities must be overseen and controlled by government without dire consequences.
It should also frighten those wishing to appear “openminded” and tolerant toward the concepts of ‘liberalism’ (Socialism).
If the truth about collectivism were presented in a straightforward and honest manner Socialism would have little to no appeal.
All who believe in the Left’s philosophy must oppose any program that favors individual progress and a good understanding of * See Chapter 4, Results of Applied Socialism, Example 2.
the cause and effects of true history as well as the benefits of private business. Opposition to tax cuts, opposition to ownership of guns, opposition to school vouchers (more local, district, and parental control), and the opposition to “pro-life” (“anti- choice”?) are components of the ‘program’ of the Democrats who also make a loud case for being “pro-choice.” * The ‘liberals’ must oppose the Boy Scouts of America, because that organization teaches loyalty to God and country and develops leadership based on an immutable morality, and the organization does not want homosexuals teaching and leading young boys. It is a private organization, and the Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional to run a private organization by its own rules.
The headway of ‘liberals’ is based on their one-sided teaching of malleable young minds that the tenets of the strong economic system of Capitalism are “unjust” and that “the worker” must be liberated. This is part and parcel to their deceitful approach to education. A self-avowed ‘liberal’ young man called in to Sean Hannity’s radio show on November 7, 2002. Sean asked him what he believed in, and he answered, “I believe in liberating the worker.” What? “Enslaved workers” in this country? I am not aware that the American worker is enslaved. That would mean that the American worker could not quit his job in order to better himself. But that Marxist theme seems to be alive and well in this great land.
According to Marx, the working people in a capitalist society “necessarily think socialistically.” The problem one might seem to have in trying to understand Socialism is simply to discover why the worker’s position in production should incline him to the view that the socialist method is not only possible but that he would believe it to be superior to the system of Capitalism.
* Some conservative writers believe it should read “pro-death.” The “prochoice” faction insists that each individual woman decides only for her own dependants.
The answer lies in the flood of socialist propaganda. The workers may believe it because they are enticed into it by deception, and that is history. To paraphrase Ann Coulter10, something “repeated with mind-numbing frequency in all major news outlets” will be believed by some members of the population.
The continual emphasis of Marx’s writing on ‘the working man’ (the proletariat) makes one wonder why he would express such concern for the worker. Could it be that there are many more workers than there are entrepreneurs, managers, and overseers?
That is similar to the political maneuvering of renters wanting rent control versus the fewer building owners who rent out their property. Could it be that if Marx could convince the mass of ignorant workers, he would have an avenue to the deceitful changing of society to his hypothetical point of view?
The manual laborer judging only by his limited personal experience cannot arrive at a true knowledge of the nature and functioning of business and economic life. Von Mises describes the worker in the large or medium-sized enterprise as not seeing the over-all structure of the business but holding that he alone is a productive member of his society (or he and all his fellow union members). So those above him who do not stand over machines or carry loads are just “freeloaders” to him. It is little wonder that the unions’ line of strength finds such wide worker acceptance; that is, unions promote opposition to management best. It is little wonder then that the idea of Socialism’s ideology— redistribution of the society’s wealth—is appealing when it is presented to the economically ignorant worker. As is so well stated by von Mises, “The masses incline towards Socialism, not because it really tends to their interests but because they believe it does so.” 11(Italics mine)* Perceptions are always more strongly correlated with behavior than are the objective features of an event, an object, or a person.
* This short description about the thinking of ‘the worker’ is based on the discussion
“The psychological presuppositions of Socialism,” a subtitle of L. von Mises’s text of Socialism, p. 357, Chapter V, “The Materialist Conception Of History.” The success of marketing pivots on this point. The same holds true for the effective business manager and executive who has to rally the employees to a new strategic initiative or a new form of competitive advantage that he believes will turn around an ailing firm.
Marx thought of people in categories. The socialists (and indeed all politicians) also think of people in categories not as individuals.
Thomas Sowell12 states: “Talking about people in the abstract as members of ‘the same category’ is also a classic argument of academic thinking.” This observation coincides with another of his statements: “Only by focusing on abstract categories that live on can redressing wrongs of history be made to seem plausible.” Sowell states further: “The Fourteenth Amendment mandates equal treatment for flesh-and-blood individuals, not for abstract categories.” (Italics mine) For reference, here is the text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One outcome of Marx’s materialist conception of history was that he maintained it was a simple and direct development of the economic environment. Also based on materialism, Marx wrote his opinion that ‘thought’ depends on social being. He wrote in addition that “class interest” determines thought. It seems never to have occurred to Marx that thought based on “social being” does not determine the forces of production, nor are those production forces dependent on class interest. Production forces are dependent on the market and the individual preferences of consumers.
Individual thought relates to individual well-being.
Marx claimed that the people’s way of thought derived from their social condition. The proletarian rule became the political force in Marxism; that is, the “disadvantaged” vs. the “privileged.” Marxists proclaimed, “The ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas, but the consequences of logic pure and simple.” Therefore, they reasoned that merely by stating that the proletarian ‘science’ is true makes it true by “logic pure and simple.” Marxism could thereby protect itself against all unwelcome criticism. In other words, who could argue with this ‘scientific fact?’ Science has a good image, so why not just use the word science? Of course, like liberal.
But in truth, there is NO scientific backing to Marx’s stated position of “logic pure and simple.” To begin with, the first step of the Scientific Method, as developed by Isaac Newton, is based upon observation (discovery) of a phenomenon. Marx could not ‘observe’ a successful model to his projections because there was none, and there has been none. Therefore, he had to rely on the only mechanism left for him; namely, conjecture. That has to be the most likely explanation of why Marxism’s (and Socialism’s) whole debate is always against the person speaking in favor of capitalistic principles, never against the opponent’s program or thesis. In the light of facts, it is hard for the Marxists and the socialists to defend the tenuous ‘accomplishments’ of unsuccessful conjecture.
There is no place for free thought within Marxism. To quote von Mises12, “Since the appearance of Marx, all truth is with the Marxist, and everything else is lies, deception, and capitalist apologetics.” Marxists and socialists do not offer concrete programs of their own (except central, big-government control), just opposition to Capitalism and opposition to the strength of programs that favor individual development, and they defame Capitalism’s advocates.
They do aim for big government and ultimately total central control of society, but that is a goal, not a discussible program. True debate with them on particular issues is not possible because all they do is criticize positive proposals and fling denigrating labels at anyone in disagreement with their positions.
David Horowitz14 points out that the normal bias on campus guest-speaker occasions is for politically Left-leaning professors to give students academic credits for attending leftist speeches. A good example of this was the recent comment of a leftist biology professor named Miriam Golomb at the University of Missouri in Columbia in reaction to a scheduled speech of David Horowitz.
She impugned him by calling him “A Real Live Bigot” and a “racist.” One of her students quoted her as saying; “…I will give twice as many credits if you go to protest.” In her zealotry she was actually behaving like a good capitalist. Her actions followed a function of a free-market type of conduct; i.e., she created protest behavior that was merit-based by awarding more free credits to the dissenters who would attend “to protest.” I do not point that out as an agreement with her action.
In the same article, Horowitz reports that on university campuses, the politicization of the undergraduate classroom since the 1960s and the systematic political harassment of conservative students by their radical professors has had the chief negative effect of discouraging conservative students from pursuing academic careers.
Assertive, one-sided political partisanship by professors in the classroom is an abuse of students’ Academic Freedom. On top of a lack of “intellectual diversity,” there is an under-representation of true historical viewpoints in the curriculum and in the reading lists available to students.
Also, most universities are free to raise enrollment fees with no apparent improvement in quality or accountability, but they hold their hands out for more subsidies from the federal government or their friendly legislators. Remember, when you subsidize something, you get more of it.
After all these years since the 1960s, we are beginning to hear of backlashes to the harangue of the Leftists at graduation exercises.
On Saturday, May 17, 2003, New York Times reporter Chris Hedges was booed off the stage at Rockford College in Illinois.
Shortly after the beginning of his malicious antiwar speech, angry students disconnected his microphone. Lt. Col. Oliver North15 wrote: At Rockford College in Illinois, New York Times reporter, Chris Hedges, delivered an antiwar address filled with invectives against American foreign policy in the Middle East.
“War in the end is always about betrayal,” Hedges opined.
“Betrayal of the young and old, of soldiers by politicians, and idealists by cynics.” An enraged audience of graduating seniors and their families finally forced Hedges from the stage, bringing his diatribe to an abrupt end.
In January 2002 Sean Hannity16 read a newspaper article written by Ellen Sorokin, a reporter for The Washington Times, who wrote how the ‘liberals’ in the New Jersey Department of Education had just written a new set of history standards. But, they left out any mention of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, the Pilgrims, and the Mayflower. She also listed the names of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Martin Luther King, Jr., which were originally left out but added again by the N. J. State Commissioner of Education one week later after Hannity made a large issue of it on his radio show. Unbelievable! Individualism is anathema to socialists. The strength of an individual derives from individual straight thinking, and individual thinking is best developed from the rational approach to logic.
Learning accurate and true history then enhances and balances rational thinking. “American history is a story of hope, of progress, of a great adventure in pursuit of more freedom and opportunity for every man, woman, and child,” Sean Hannity19 wrote.
Opposition to, and criticism of, Capitalism form the program of the socialists’ thrust to change a government that is based upon individuality, liberty, and the free-market economy. The Democratic Party and the ‘liberals’ have adopted the tactic of criticism, and they are good at it. Opposition to programs that promote positive mental growth and maturity occur by reflex with the ‘liberal’ mind-set. They work continuously to undermine free society by weakening the individualism of its citizens. It has taken three decades to penetrate and negatively influence the whole US public secondary school and university levels of education.
Negative criticism is the ‘liberal’ political modus operandi. ‘Liberals’ do not hear facts or contentions other than their own. They just force opponents to dilute their arguments by defending against personal accusations. That somehow should make the ‘liberal’ argument appear stronger and more dominant.
‘Liberals’ and Left-believing groups have criticized, and now many of them demonstrate against, the present war on terrorism and the recent war on Iraq. It would be better for these groups to channel their forces of criticism and opposition toward the conspirators causing the terror. It would also be better for them to devote their efforts in a positive manner for something creative for their society. The same is true for the terrorists, to channel their energies to create something beneficial to improve their own lot instead of trying to destroy other countries and people. That, of course, is too much to hope for because their hatred is aimed against any system that provides individual self- determination and religious freedom.
No one publicly used the word “treason” for the actions of the ‘liberal’ Representatives Jim McDermott (D-Washington) and David Bonior (D-Michigan) who gave “aid and comfort to the enemy” in Iraq in the Fall of 2002. I believe it was outright seditious for them to stand in Iraq and criticize the actions of the President of the United States and to go so far as to call their President a liar “on enemy soil.” For those legislators to take the word of the perfidious and treacherous dictator above the word of the American President is at very least disloyal, and it provided encouragement to an enemy. And who would classify Saddam Hussein as anything but an enemy? In my opinion, the two legislators’ cowardly performance should have been rebuked as a seditious (if not treasonous) act, not as just dissenting lay people with opposing views do here in this country. Stalin referred to individuals like Bonier/McDermott/Fonda/Penn as “useful idiots.” They think that their celebrity status infuses them with the right to speak out and the expectation to be taken seriously. The former is true, and the latter is false.
Befittingly, there was a move promoted by Senator Lindsay Graham to treat at least as treason the actions of the US citizens who traveled to Iraq to be “human shields.”* Those certainly were actions, not free-speech dissents. Remember, one of the definitions of treason in Webster’s Dictionary is “giving aid or comfort to the enemy of the United States.”20 Unfortunately, holding people responsible for their seditious actions has been diluted and depreciated in the last decades.
By his public critical outbursts against President George W. Bush and his staff, the thoroughly inappropriate remarks of former President Jimmy Carter also have had to give comfort to the enemy.
I admit Carter uttered most of his opposition to the foreign policy regarding war to disarm the pathological madman-Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, right here in the US. True, Carter did not advocate the overthrow of our government. Nonetheless, his position of past President makes such public statements unprecedented and certainly very inappropriate.
The conservative radio talk-show hosts today, in my opinion, have become more sophisticated but have an even greater task than in 1964 in reversing the anti-capitalistic and even the anti- American thinking and position of the socialist philosophy. There are three decades of successful infiltration of our school systems by the disgruntled ‘flower children,’ their indoctrinated students, and their sympathizers. They, who believed in opposition to civil authority and thus became imbued with supporting the unsavory falsehoods of collectivism in their youth, now in colleges, have succeeded in the fateful and one-sided indoctrination of a large percentage of our younger citizenry. Those young, supple minds are susceptible to one-sided, collective political arguments accompanied by the emotional certitude of ‘authority’ (professors).
A clearer and more descriptive example of the willing acceptance of the sugary but vague collective promises of a ‘better tomor- * I am unaware of the outcome of the Senator’s endeavors.
row’ could hardly by cited than the figurative examples painted verbally by George Orwell of the portrayal of Socialism by an animal community in his political satire, Animal Farm.21 Up to this point I have been describing the two systems in opposition to each other in this country. The gradual undermining of rugged individualism, character, and independence has been in part successful by the slow but consistent elimination of the educational background of the reasons for founding this great country, and the conscious erosion of stability by their 1) ‘moral relativism,’ 2) the push for affirmative action for minorities, and 3) the rights of groups over the rights of individuals.
One might say that to study the history of the subtle and gradual pressure to introduce and spread the philosophy of Socialism “isn’t important” because people today are interested in what is going on in the present and are not interested in the past history or the effects of collectivist ideas. On the contrary, I am presenting this commentary to show that it is very important to delve into the past history of the concepts and the several examples of the failure of Socialism, because the consequences of this insidious system do influence substantially the workings of our society today.
That school of thought appears to dominate the actions of the Democratic Party, which uses it so often to guide their proposals and criticisms today. They attempt the tactics of emotional influence by railing criticisms, just like the earlier socialists. That is also the basis of the one-sided push by the ‘anointed’ educators’ in our institutions of higher learning to ensure a large number of emotionally indoctrinated students. Sadly thereby, most of those students remain unaccustomed to comparing and thinking.
‘Liberals’