Friedrich Hayek warned about the dangers of socialism in The Road to Serfdom. It was a dispassionate attempt to describe how, when you relax the constraints on government, the results are unintended. His chapter on “Why the Worst Get to The Top” should frighten anyone, even the well-meaning, misguided persons who foolishly believe that socialist central planning can design a better society.
Lawrence Reed stated:
Those who, in Hayek’s words, “think that it is not the system which we need fear, but the danger that it might be run by bad men,” are naïve utopians who will forever be disappointed by the socialist outcome. Indeed, this is the history of 20th century statism — the endless search for a place where the dream might actually be made to work, settling on a spot until disaster is embarrassingly apparent to all, then blaming persons rather than the system and flitting off to the next inevitable disappointment. Perhaps someday, the dictionary definition of “statist” may read, “Someone who learns nothing from human nature, economics or experience and repeats the same mistakes over and over again without a care for the rights and lives of people he crushes with his good intentions.”
We dare not depend on good people. While they exist, they will be shoved aside by bad people lusting for wealth and power. We must depend upon systemic controls that protect us from both good and bad people from usurping powers that were never intended. We need a system that controls leaders, not the other way around. Without controls, so-called leaders continue to push boundaries until a government arises unlike anything ever envisioned or intended.
In a recent post, Our Patrick Henry Moment is Here, the theoretical arguments against socialism were presented briefly. Then the empirical evidence against socialism was reviewed. When something is shown impossible to work (the theoretical case against) and then shown as a universal failure (the empirical case), one would think that the system would be consigned to the dustbin of history. Yet socialism does not go away.
There is some fatal attraction that draws soft-headed people to its siren song.
No amount of rational discussion can overcome the utopian ideals that these misguided souls possess. A simple enumeration of socialism’s failures is not enough to dissuade them.
In a response to my Patrick Henry Moment, a frustrated reader suggested that the following video should be required viewing for anyone that has socialist leanings. It shows the unintended but inevitable consequences of a socialist regime. Only Germany and the Soviet Union are covered in the piece. The Chinese, who murdered more of their citizens than the other two combined, is not dealt with. Nor is the brutality of lesser socialist failures such as North Korea or Cuba.
If you choose to watch, be forewarned that the data are shocking and the video is graphic. All socialists should watch to see the brutality which Hayek deemed inevitable once a society chooses this model of governance. The video is over an hour in length. Warning: it takes some time to load.
Many are likely to say that socialism need not end this way, especially in a cultured, caring society. Germany, when socialism arrived, was arguably the most refined and cultured society in the world. They were at the zenith of music, arts, science, philosophy, etc. Yet, this cultured society allowed a monster, Hitler, to violate all civilized norms.
It was the German experience that Hayek knew well. It was what he saw happen there and begin to take root in his newly adopted country, England, that motivated him to write ”The Road to Serfdom.” He knew that freedom was not lost all at once but in small increments. He knew that after many usurpations of freedom, the government becomes an unstoppable monster that seizes total control of society.
Like most experiments, Nickelthrower’s will combine all shades of colors attractive to him into a pot only to find a gross purple concoction attractive to no one.
Customs and traditions evolve, and evolve slowly, or they dissolve. The fact that his experiment has found detractors in every political stripe recommends it no more than had it found complete agreement in one. Intellectual vanity is the root of political error, whatever name it calls itself.
Um, no. Most people embrace anarchist philosophies when presented without the word “anarchy” in them. The end of child labor, the 40 hour work week, labor unions and wrongful death benefits were all brought to you by Anarchists. Be sure to thank one on your next day off.
It was the anarchists that first saw the dangers of fascism and risked life and limb to fight the fascists in Spain. It was Grandpa Bush and Henry Ford that supported monsters like Hitler.
The establishment loathes anarchists like they loath no one else because anarchists promotes Democracy – Democracy in the workforce and Democracy at the community level. They also loath the anarchists because they know that when pushed, anarchists will push back. Do you think that going to the polls every 2 or four years equals Democracy?? Not in a million years.
Google “Hay Market Affair” and learn for yourself.
Greetings,
I imagine that I am one of the “soft headed” people mentioned in this article given my comments on the article “Our Patrick Henry Moment Is Here.” My experiences living and working in other countries, military service, college and, finally, teaching history and government led me to the logical conclusion that Anarchy is the correct path to pursue. Incidentally, I am an Anarchist that believes in Natural Rights and an economy based upon shared resources.
I wish to give as much power as possible to the individual. Problems larger than an individual should be handled by a neighborhood – this might include taking care of the elderly or education. Problems larger than a neighborhood would have to be worked out by some body that was elected with the primary function of that elected body clearly spelled out. An example might be the maintenance of an electrical grid.
I would respect private property rights but I would not extend those rights to corporations. I also believe that property rights should not continue after death because it is not healthy for a democracy when one group or another has too much wealth.
So, before getting too carried away with accusations of soft-headedness, take a look at what an old Anarchist would do.
1. Abolish the Federal Reserve and have a system where currency actually represented wealth. Gold, silver, oil – whatever.
2. Abolish the Department of Education
3. Force government to balance their books
4. Abolish the IRS and Income Tax
5. Keep only the parts of government that directly serve the needs of the people.
6. Close all foreign military bases. Shrink our military down to fewer than 100,000.
7. Keep the Sheriff and trial by jury but abolish all municipal police departments.
8. Corporations all become worker owned.
9. Decriminalize all consensual crimes – drugs, prostitution and gambling would no longer fund gangs, corrupt police or politicians.
10. Gun ownership would be encouraged and most gun laws repealed.
Libertarians love Anarchist until we start talking about Labor Unions and worker owned industries – then they go nuts.
The Left loves the idea of decriminalizing certain crimes but shudders at the thought of everyone owning the means to protect one’s self.
The Right goes crazy over the thought of abolishing the Department of Education – I think they would have an annual parade to honor such an occurrence. Anyway, they freak the hell out at the thought of Socialized Medicine.
The purpose of this little exercise is to tell you that not everyone is thinking in terms of LEFT and RIGHT and that some of us out here are Anarchists. We should work together where our philosophies overlap and agree to disagree where they do not.
That is what will put us above all the Big Time Wrestling (poor Peter Schiff) noise that is out there.
Hayek
Few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and Naziism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. Fascism and communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of all economic activity tends to produce. We did not want to understand the development which has produced totalitarianism because such and understanding might destroy some of the dearest illusions to which we are determined to cling. Every socialist is a disguised dictator.
Mises
It is the liquidation of dissent which brings us the condition that socialists call freedom. The Marxians love of democratic institutions was a stratagem only, a pious fraud for the deception of the masses. Within a socialist community there is no room left for freedom. It is no accident that Germany, the country that inaugurated the social security system, was the cradle of both varieties of modern disparagement of democracy, the Marxist and the Nazi.