MaxB
21st December 2002, 20:39
"If another economic system is going to follow, it must at least provide the level of prosperity and wealth of the system it is replacing. Otherwise, it fails immediately. So the challenge to the Socialist must be how to maintain the level of wealth creation of Capitalism while ensuring economic equality. No Socialist has ever satisfactorily addressed that problem. "
Why Socialism Fails
Socialism is immoral and contrary to human nature. The only way that one can believe in the efficacy of Socialism is to:
(1) Not believe in private property; and
(2) Believe that human nature is malleable.
The abolition of the concept of private property must be achieved in order to justify the confiscation of property for distribution. To have a system of redistribution while recognizing "private property" is theft and hence immoral. Such immorality causes rot from within and eventually the collapse of the entire system.
Human nature must be malleable because Socialism requires that the sustenance of life be provided in the absence of incentives. Socialism trades in the merit system and exchanges it for security and equality. However, since the greatest advances of mankind’s standard of living have come about through the motivation provided by a system of reward commensurate with effort, human nature will have to be changed in order to derive a new means for motivating people.
A Socialist never justifies why "equality" should be the desired end of human existence. They deride the merit and reward components of Capitalism but never explain why they are to be considered a lesser good to be pursued than "equality." Furthermore, a Socialist never defines exactly what is meant by "equality" so it becomes an open-ended pursuit of an undefined goal.
Another thing Socialism utterly fails to justify is why it should be believed that human nature is malleable. This is a critical question because if human nature is immutable, then what drives and motivates human beings is also unchangeable. In which case, discarding the Capitalist system that relies on the merit/reward system is an exercise in futility.
But even if we are to assume (and we shouldn't) that human nature can be molded and shaped to be sensitive to appeals to community, altruism, and equality, Socialists never explains what the new motivation would be or how it would look or how it would be learned and applied. As with their definition of "equality," the Socialist leaves the inquiring mind hanging as to the precise meaning of "The New Motivation of the New Man."
Capitalism answers all of these questions by the accumulated wisdom of the ages. Capitalism did not arise in one generation. Through trial and error, the human race has tried various constructs for the social and economic order. Some have worked better than others have and all were based on different concepts of human nature.
Capitalism settled on the realization that human nature is not malleable and human beings are motivated by innate concepts of effort, reward, and punishment. Men inherently respond to reward and punishment the way a baby responds to pleasure and pain. The reason Capitalism has great potential for generating wealth is because it operates within this concept of human nature.
It is true that Capitalism produces inequality. If one is compensated and rewarded commensurate with one’s effort, it stands to reason that different levels of effort will produce different level of rewards. And since humans have, throughout the ages, shown that every man is unique and productive in different forms and capacities, it must necessarily be true that a merit/reward system will create disparity in economic conditions.
But what is the alternative? Is it possible to have another economic system that generates the wealth and prosperity that Capitalism does and that simultaneously maintains equality in economic conditions? Socialists may not like Capitalism because they despise the disparity in equality that results, but they have to at least admit that Capitalism has elevated man’s standard of living many hundreds of times since before it was applied.
If another economic system is going to follow, it must at least provide the level of prosperity and wealth of the system it is replacing. Otherwise, it fails immediately. So the challenge to the Socialist must be how to maintain the level of wealth creation of Capitalism while ensuring economic equality. No Socialist has ever satisfactorily addressed that problem.
I say "satisfactorily" because those that have attempted to address the problem always rely on the assumption that human nature is malleable and can be modified so that the source of man’s motivation arises not from merit and reward but from a sense of community and altruism. That human nature has not significantly wavered throughout history does not deter the Socialist from believing human beings can learn new ways of motivation.
Also, the fact that no culture or society has ever successfully taught man to be motivated by a sense of community and altruism and simultaneously produce the incremental increase in standard of living that Capitalism has, does not seem to deter the Socialist from believing in the realizability of the egalitarian dream.
It must therefore be a tenet of faith to the Socialist that:
Human nature is malleable. People’s purposes and motivations can be learned and unlearned (e.g. soviet re-education camps).
Humans do not have to operate according to the merit/reward system that Capitalism utilizes so successfully.
Humans can be motivated by senses of community and altruism that will promote effort commensurate with ability and talent (not reward).
Levels of wealth creation (prosperity) comparable to Capitalism can be achieved without using a system of merit/reward/profit/loss.
Humans can experience equality of economic conditions and still produce different levels of effort that is proportional to ability.
Some of these tenets require substantial leaps of faith to believe. This is why many Socialists are so fervent and zealous in trying to realize their ideals. An article of religious faith is perhaps the greatest means of driving people towards an end. Adolph Hitler understood this well, as did Lenin and Marx.
But it is difficult to argue with success. According to Socialism, Capitalism is halfway there by giving human beings a wonderful standard of living. But the Socialist suggests, as an article of faith, that we can go all the way. But many are rightfully skeptical because they are not convinced of at least one of the tenets of faith that the Socialist believes in.
Doubts and questions arise, such as:
Is human nature really changeable?
Can people’s motivations really be learned and unlearned?
Can people really produce according to their ability without a reward proportional to their production effort?
Can humans be motivated by a sense of community and altruism that will promote a level of effort commensurate with ability and talent?
Can a system that does not reward according to effort really produce the levels of wealth and prosperity that Capitalism has?
Is an equality of reward conducive to producing different levels of effort commensurate with one’s ability and talent?
These are excellent questions and ones that Socialism doesn’t answer. Furthermore, the Socialist has no practical model to point to. It is all a theory, an ideal, and an article of faith. And we are asked to dispense with our current form of economics in order to try this theory. I think most will understand if intelligent people choose to maintain the status-quo economic arrangement.
The Socialist will say that it is unfair to use the absence of a practical arrangement as reason to reject it. After all, it must be tried in order to see if it is practical in reality. However, I submit that Socialism has been tried … repeatedly throughout the 20th century. And it has always failed. Furthermore, Socialism assumes so much and departs so substantially from what we know does work that its practicality is highly doubtful in any case.
Why Socialism Fails
Socialism is immoral and contrary to human nature. The only way that one can believe in the efficacy of Socialism is to:
(1) Not believe in private property; and
(2) Believe that human nature is malleable.
The abolition of the concept of private property must be achieved in order to justify the confiscation of property for distribution. To have a system of redistribution while recognizing "private property" is theft and hence immoral. Such immorality causes rot from within and eventually the collapse of the entire system.
Human nature must be malleable because Socialism requires that the sustenance of life be provided in the absence of incentives. Socialism trades in the merit system and exchanges it for security and equality. However, since the greatest advances of mankind’s standard of living have come about through the motivation provided by a system of reward commensurate with effort, human nature will have to be changed in order to derive a new means for motivating people.
A Socialist never justifies why "equality" should be the desired end of human existence. They deride the merit and reward components of Capitalism but never explain why they are to be considered a lesser good to be pursued than "equality." Furthermore, a Socialist never defines exactly what is meant by "equality" so it becomes an open-ended pursuit of an undefined goal.
Another thing Socialism utterly fails to justify is why it should be believed that human nature is malleable. This is a critical question because if human nature is immutable, then what drives and motivates human beings is also unchangeable. In which case, discarding the Capitalist system that relies on the merit/reward system is an exercise in futility.
But even if we are to assume (and we shouldn't) that human nature can be molded and shaped to be sensitive to appeals to community, altruism, and equality, Socialists never explains what the new motivation would be or how it would look or how it would be learned and applied. As with their definition of "equality," the Socialist leaves the inquiring mind hanging as to the precise meaning of "The New Motivation of the New Man."
Capitalism answers all of these questions by the accumulated wisdom of the ages. Capitalism did not arise in one generation. Through trial and error, the human race has tried various constructs for the social and economic order. Some have worked better than others have and all were based on different concepts of human nature.
Capitalism settled on the realization that human nature is not malleable and human beings are motivated by innate concepts of effort, reward, and punishment. Men inherently respond to reward and punishment the way a baby responds to pleasure and pain. The reason Capitalism has great potential for generating wealth is because it operates within this concept of human nature.
It is true that Capitalism produces inequality. If one is compensated and rewarded commensurate with one’s effort, it stands to reason that different levels of effort will produce different level of rewards. And since humans have, throughout the ages, shown that every man is unique and productive in different forms and capacities, it must necessarily be true that a merit/reward system will create disparity in economic conditions.
But what is the alternative? Is it possible to have another economic system that generates the wealth and prosperity that Capitalism does and that simultaneously maintains equality in economic conditions? Socialists may not like Capitalism because they despise the disparity in equality that results, but they have to at least admit that Capitalism has elevated man’s standard of living many hundreds of times since before it was applied.
If another economic system is going to follow, it must at least provide the level of prosperity and wealth of the system it is replacing. Otherwise, it fails immediately. So the challenge to the Socialist must be how to maintain the level of wealth creation of Capitalism while ensuring economic equality. No Socialist has ever satisfactorily addressed that problem.
I say "satisfactorily" because those that have attempted to address the problem always rely on the assumption that human nature is malleable and can be modified so that the source of man’s motivation arises not from merit and reward but from a sense of community and altruism. That human nature has not significantly wavered throughout history does not deter the Socialist from believing human beings can learn new ways of motivation.
Also, the fact that no culture or society has ever successfully taught man to be motivated by a sense of community and altruism and simultaneously produce the incremental increase in standard of living that Capitalism has, does not seem to deter the Socialist from believing in the realizability of the egalitarian dream.
It must therefore be a tenet of faith to the Socialist that:
Human nature is malleable. People’s purposes and motivations can be learned and unlearned (e.g. soviet re-education camps).
Humans do not have to operate according to the merit/reward system that Capitalism utilizes so successfully.
Humans can be motivated by senses of community and altruism that will promote effort commensurate with ability and talent (not reward).
Levels of wealth creation (prosperity) comparable to Capitalism can be achieved without using a system of merit/reward/profit/loss.
Humans can experience equality of economic conditions and still produce different levels of effort that is proportional to ability.
Some of these tenets require substantial leaps of faith to believe. This is why many Socialists are so fervent and zealous in trying to realize their ideals. An article of religious faith is perhaps the greatest means of driving people towards an end. Adolph Hitler understood this well, as did Lenin and Marx.
But it is difficult to argue with success. According to Socialism, Capitalism is halfway there by giving human beings a wonderful standard of living. But the Socialist suggests, as an article of faith, that we can go all the way. But many are rightfully skeptical because they are not convinced of at least one of the tenets of faith that the Socialist believes in.
Doubts and questions arise, such as:
Is human nature really changeable?
Can people’s motivations really be learned and unlearned?
Can people really produce according to their ability without a reward proportional to their production effort?
Can humans be motivated by a sense of community and altruism that will promote a level of effort commensurate with ability and talent?
Can a system that does not reward according to effort really produce the levels of wealth and prosperity that Capitalism has?
Is an equality of reward conducive to producing different levels of effort commensurate with one’s ability and talent?
These are excellent questions and ones that Socialism doesn’t answer. Furthermore, the Socialist has no practical model to point to. It is all a theory, an ideal, and an article of faith. And we are asked to dispense with our current form of economics in order to try this theory. I think most will understand if intelligent people choose to maintain the status-quo economic arrangement.
The Socialist will say that it is unfair to use the absence of a practical arrangement as reason to reject it. After all, it must be tried in order to see if it is practical in reality. However, I submit that Socialism has been tried … repeatedly throughout the 20th century. And it has always failed. Furthermore, Socialism assumes so much and departs so substantially from what we know does work that its practicality is highly doubtful in any case.