Fending Off the Egalitarian Impulses of the Socialist State
Whether it is the socialism espoused by the Nazis or the socialism of the former Soviet Union or the socialism that is emerging in the United States, there is one overarching sentiment, however different socialism in these three societies may be. Socialism everywhere expresses envy of excellence by treating the contributions and wealth of the successful as the wages of sin.
The Nazis saw the sin as a Jewish conspiracy, the Soviets saw sin as exploitation by the bourgeoisie, and what is emerging in the United States is the sin of the wealthy.
In the Obama administration greed is considered the sin that must be opposed. But greed, whatever its deficiencies, is, as Adam Smith pointed out, an incentive for the promotion of capitalism which, in the aggregate, has a salutary influence on the economy. To combat greed, the socialists emphasize envy. Since equality is the goal, even trivial differences in income are exaggerated and the progressivity in the tax system is employed as a blunt instrument to impose equality.
Lincoln said “you can’t make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor.” But President Obama seems to believe that wealth is invariably related to the wages of sin and must be controlled or, to use his language, “spread around.” To make sure this happens, government must expand and, in so doing, the private sector will inevitably contract. That explains why socialism, which purports to represent the interests of the average person, ends in overwhelming government control or outright tyranny.
Just as greed has its excesses, envy manifests excess in schadenfreude, a desire to destroy rivals or, in this instance, penalize the alleged wages of sin. If you assume wealth is bad, invariably a function of illicit or inappropriate acts, it must be penalized, i.e. a surtax to pay for universal health care or a 40 percent income tax. Even though one percent of the population pays for close to forty percent of government revenue, it is still not enough for the masters of egalitarianism. They ask, why should so few, have so much? And they answer by arguing for leveling, i.e., a collision at the income mean point through transfer payments.
Of course, what the egalitarians never realize is that at some point the rich will take their assets to a safe harbor or, assuming there are restrictions on moving capital, will simply be less productive. Contrary to the supposition of the enviers, it takes only about ten percent of the population to be a catalyst for innovation and wealth generation. If there aren’t rewards for this portion of the population, there won’t be the technological breakthroughs that foster economic growth.
Dear Mr. London:
1) your ending quote is from Thomas Jefferson. Please correct all future references.
2) “Schadenfreude” correctly refers to “the joy of observing the misfortune of others” (though I *do* prefer the literal – but utterly incorrect – translation: “Damage Joy”).
Some nice thoughts in this rather confused article.
Czar of Defenestration:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Mr. London:
1) your ending quote is from Thomas Jefferson. Please correct all future references.
2) “Schadenfreude” correctly refers to “the joy of observing the misfortune of others” (though I *do* prefer the literal – but utterly incorrect – translation: “Damage Joy”).
Some nice thoughts in this rather confused article.
Nice analysis Mr. London. The left always tries to either trivialize, condemn outright, or transform traditional religion into another political social movement. The answer to their reasons for this lies within the context of the Ten Commandements, the bedrock of Judeo-Christianity. If you remember some of them you will understand that to impose their brand of politics on the the will of the people, the people must first reject what God has commanded: Thou shalt not STEAL; Thou shalt not MURDER; Thou shalt not COVER THY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS; HONOR thy Father and Mother; Rememeber the Lord’s Day; Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain; Thou shalt not BEAR FALSE WITNESS against Thy Neighbor. Take a look at each and one can see that to force socialism/marxism/fascism/communism into place requires lying, stealing, envy, greed, murder, the destruction of parental authority and finally to put the State in the position of GOD rather than the Creator. It is why religion must be destroyed and replaced with leftism which mixed in with what sounds like religion to the unsuspecting becomes another tool to destroy it. We are in for some really rough times as our 44th President continues to orchestrate his Marxist revolution of America.
This interesting piece can serve as a retort to a recent NY Times blog forum in which an echo chamber of like-minded panelists took turns ridiculing 9-12 Tea Partiers for calling Obama a socialist, on the basis that they were incorrectly using the term “socialist” in its pristine dictionary sense.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican’s Web Sanctuary
“Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what their ways bring: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic — every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.”
-Frederich Nietzche
thank you for this well written piece Herbert London.
aside from the other poster who finds your artical confusing, it is well know that this “goal” of supposed equality is a race to the bottom. it sure is dark down here.
“Yet, despite this reality, socialism is a persistent idea. My suspicion is that socialism is related to the belief that most people think they can be free-riders; they can get something for nothing by taking from the rich.”
I am perplexed why socialism is a persistent idea–it might be to those who have not read history or studied economics. My best guess for why it persists is that some people fear they cannot compete or choose not to, they’d rather “borrow” from their neighbor.
“Something for nothing” has made a comeback, at the expect of achievement, growth and innovation. Call me a racists but I want more for my fellow Americans than to be permanently on the dole.
Contrary to the supposition of the enviers, it takes only about ten percent of the population to be a catalyst for innovation and wealth generation. If there aren’t rewards for this portion of the population, there won’t be the technological breakthroughs that foster economic growth.
Another supposition these people make is that individuals are fungible and so those “ten percent” could, instead of being, e.g. Bill Gates, could be one of our resident trolls. The idea that there inheres in each individual something irreducibly unique and that in some individuals that characteristic enables them to pursue and attain excellence, is foreign to the Left, who sees everything in abstract “social forces”, so that, under the right circumstances, a wino could be the next Bill Gates. Call it the “Trading Places” worldview, after the movie of the same name.
Oh, and in order to maintain the illusion that this worldview aligns with reality, you have to forget that there are a ton of studies of identical twins raised in separate homes showing that the twins developed quite similar traits and capabilities, despite their different environments.
5
I swear it was Nietzsche who also said that collectivism was (paraphrasing) “a bunch of zeros congregating together to convince themselves they add up to something”. Even if he didn’t say it, it’s still true.
The motivator is emotion, not reason:
“He thought he was better than I was.”
Folks, this is just preaching to the choir. You’re expecting leftists to run before they can walk. Take it from me, a leftist who despises socialism. Leftists adhere to socialism because they see it as the solution to the evils of capitalism. I stopped thinking this way for a number of reasons.
1. I saw these evils (unemployment, exploitation of the workers, the rich getting richer, and so on) emerge in an area that was pretty far from capitalism: academia. If capitalism caused those evils, then they shouldn’t have arisen outside of capitalism.
2. I saw leftist academics do nothing about these problems. In fact, some of them in 1995 actually thwarted a union of graduate students who were worried about unemployment.
3. In academia, I saw how leftists at the top actually behaved. Sure, they talked about a redistribution of wealth, but they didn’t want to do it themselves. They wanted other people to do it. The unemployment problem in academia could be alleviated if every tenured professor contributed to a fund to help the unemployed. They won’t do it.
4. I had to face the facts: leftist academics at the top were stingy. I will never again complain about greedy corporate bosses.
5. Leftists at the top of academia often came from wealthy backgrounds. They were stingy, and one way this came out was their reluctance to let in people from poorer backgrounds.
6. So, I concluded that socialists were either frauds or dupes. I used to be a dupe, but no longer. The frauds are those at the top who are actually going to get to run things once socialism is instituted. Their rule is this: No actual workers will be allowed to rule.
I could say a lot more, but I hope you get the picture.
Speaking of fending off impulses:
http://cbs4.com/local/Miami.Former.Stripper.2.1193918.html
And may God bless.
“The frauds are those at the top who are actually going to get to run things once socialism is instituted. Their rule is this: No actual workers will be allowed to rule.”
At a recent retreat, my colleague and I were having our dinner at a table in the far corner of the room. A group of leftist academics sat down with us, and proceeded to talk about the grave responsibility they have to use their superior skills to change the climate and save the world. They did not even acknowledge our presence: no small talk about the weather, the quality of the venue, what we might be learning. They talked around us as if we did not exist. Finally, the Leftist Academic Director looked at us and said “Shouldn’t you girls be organizing the after dinner presentation?” Taking a hint, we picked up our plates and walked away.
Not only will workers not be allowed to rule, you will not even be allowed to sit at the table.
Perhaps this topic might be expanded further to investigate why and at what point societies fall for the “egalitarian” socialist view. It seems that the rise and popularity of this view closely parallels the decline of ethics, of integrity and honor within our society. Our governments at all levels, our banks and businesses, are perceived as “on the take” and corrupt. We no longer seem able to even discuss ethical behavior, the honorable and right thing to do, or criticize actions based on those values. People gravitate to socialism when a capitalistic society’s corruption becomes so egregious that it reaches deeply into the lives of its people.
11
When I was in my Ph.D. program, I read an essay that pointed out that the most important question to ask yourself, if you are an aspiring academic, is “Can I picture myself working with people like this the rest of my life?” When the answer turned out to be “F*ck no!”, I knew it was time to move on. Best decision I ever made.
You can’t enforce equality without a totalitarian state. Marxists want a totalitarian state with them in charge. The championing of equality makes for a perfectly camouflaged and seemingly moral vehicle for what they want.
There are also many similar but more diluted versions of the marxist line where various divisions within society can be exploited by individuals to enrich themselves. The divisions may exist in reality but the exploiters are only in it for personal gain and *require* those divisions to not be healed. Chicago marxism.
Last but not least are decent people who think social considerations should be part of policy decisions but who have varying degrees of common sense.
They’re not all evil – but some most definitely and absolutely are.
Competition strengthens and inspires innovation. Socialism inspires mediocrity and dependence. Capitalism is not evil or perfect but its mother’s milk for me.
It puzzles me that some people are confused about how Socialism can continue to be so popular.
The poor will always have anger that can be manipulated by an elitist upper class of self-professed revolutionaries and populists.
Remember that any Socialist society always has party bosses who steer the means of production into their own hands and/or secure their political positions by “speaking in the name of the people”, channeling the anger of the poor to serve their own interests.
As long as hate and envy remain powerful tools, Socialists will continue to use harness them to advance their political agenda…
Outstanding article
Socialism persists because it appeals to three groups. (A) the naive idealist, (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”)
(B) the envious and jealous, (class warfare, redistribution of weath)
(C) those who want power for power’s sake (they assume they will be at or near the top of the power structure of the resulting totalitarian state)
Seperately these groups may be small, but together they can often have a majority of votes.
Yet, despite this reality, socialism is a persistent idea. My suspicion is that socialism is related to the belief that most people think they can be free-riders; they can get something for nothing by taking from the rich./
The losers and dysfunctional will always want to take what the successful have.
Sir, you’re using socialism very casually. And appear to mean state intervention. That’s a ludicrous use, as well as deceptive
Using socialism very casually? Well, that’s actually what socialists (a.k.a. commies) do until they have enough power to redistribute your property and throw you in the gulag.