Somehow, despite its manifest failures and body counts, people are talking about socialism as if it is reasonable to do another experiment with it. In fairness, some of this enthusiasm is just adolescent optimism but some, like Elizabeth Bruenig and her recent tour, are simply not well thought out positions by intelligent people.
Oxford defines socialism thusly: A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. The Oxford people wisely add that despite its many iterations, socialism "necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market," Untrammelled" being defined as "Not deprived of freedom of action or expression; not restricted or hampered."
This definition is true but inadequate. Socialism does make all these organizational and logistical changes but only after a crucial and never mentioned intermediate step: The socialist decides what the desires and needs of the culture are before channeling the economy toward them. That is to say, before organizing the economy, the socialist has already decided upon the Nature of Man and how to nourish it. Socialism is more than simple restriction, socialism is restriction toward an end.
This is a rather astonishing decision and it is surprising that so few socialists are willing to share their vision of Man in any other than the most vague platitudes. After all, if they know the truth about us, they should share it. But they don't; the plan is to start the ball rolling and work it out through the funnel of good intentions. That's usually when the killing starts.
In a socialist economy, the planner lacks a means for obtaining information on what individuals want. (This is offered by Kirzner as the reason the controlled economies fail--more than the absence of the profit motive.) Conversely, a free market economy has no concept of what "society" wants and freely admits it.
Oxford defines socialism thusly: A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. The Oxford people wisely add that despite its many iterations, socialism "necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market," Untrammelled" being defined as "Not deprived of freedom of action or expression; not restricted or hampered."
This definition is true but inadequate. Socialism does make all these organizational and logistical changes but only after a crucial and never mentioned intermediate step: The socialist decides what the desires and needs of the culture are before channeling the economy toward them. That is to say, before organizing the economy, the socialist has already decided upon the Nature of Man and how to nourish it. Socialism is more than simple restriction, socialism is restriction toward an end.
This is a rather astonishing decision and it is surprising that so few socialists are willing to share their vision of Man in any other than the most vague platitudes. After all, if they know the truth about us, they should share it. But they don't; the plan is to start the ball rolling and work it out through the funnel of good intentions. That's usually when the killing starts.
In a socialist economy, the planner lacks a means for obtaining information on what individuals want. (This is offered by Kirzner as the reason the controlled economies fail--more than the absence of the profit motive.) Conversely, a free market economy has no concept of what "society" wants and freely admits it.
This is the problem in socialism; socialism does not struggle for its lack of success--which is informational--but because of its very nature. Socialism speaks as a voice for society. It has come to conclusions about the very nature of man and tries to put into place laws and markets that reflect that nature. It pretends to know what society--not just individuals--wants.
But what does a society want?
If a system does not know what individuals want, how could it possibly have the arrogance to know what society wants?
But what does a society want?
If a system does not know what individuals want, how could it possibly have the arrogance to know what society wants?
No comments:
Post a Comment