The strange appeal of socialism. Why?

Miscellaneous General
, , , ,
1

If you have read Lew Rockwell’s article today, you may be discouraged as I am. It raises a question I have been wrestiling with. I will try to put it into words: If freedom is the path to greater human fulfillment (and I believe it is), and if people naturally seek higher satisfaction (fulfillment), then why does there seem to be a tendency for individuals to reject freedom? The libertarian philosophy asserts that freedom and self-determination are part of human nature–these are the ways to maximize human potential and fulfillment. Yet the majority of human individuals reject freedom and self-determination.

This seems to prevent a problem for the freedom philosophy. It seems to indicate that we may be wrong about human nature. It seems as if human nature is against freedom.

If we say that there are two sides to human nature: animal vs. rational, for example, then it seems that the animal side is the more powerful of the two. Why should this be so? If the rational enhances survival and fulfillment, then shouldn’t it win out over time through selection processes, both among individuals and populations as awhole (on large time scales)?

Any ideas?

2

Getting things for free is great, until you run out of other people’s money.

3

Because when people become discouraged or do not know how to solve a problem on their own and become frustrated with it, they are usually quick to allow another individual or group of people to take care of the situation for them. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual rejects freedom.

4

Remember that most people don’t question the idea of territorial monopoly (or even take notice of it) before they form their political views. Hence their whole worldview is predicated on the fact that State is beneficial and will always exist.

Since they believe the State is beneficial and necessary, it’s somewhat natural to arrive at the conclusion that social problems can only be solved through the State. Moreover, every social issue the State gets its fingers into becomes another issue that will later seem unresolvable without the State (except to those who dig deeper). Not least because making laws and forcing compliance is a lot easier to understand than the organic and largely unpredictable nature of market processes.

5

You see, every nation marked with relatively high national IQ is known to have free markets. [:D]

Hong Kong has the highest average national IQ in the world, and is the free-est economy. South Korea also falls high on the IQ lists and economic freedom indices. Same for Taiwan and Japan. Among European nations of high IQ, Italy and Switzerland are on the top, and also marked by high economic freedom.

So with that said, note that heavily nationalised or bureaucratic nations include the low IQ nations like Congo or Egypt.

Nations with rational and thinking people simply grab on to liberty and freedom much quicker, even though vestiges of disillusionment and desire for collectivization still stay on them. Nations with, to put it bluntly, stupid people do not, and tend to ruin their countries more and more for much longer.

However, Egypt under circumstances is now forced by itself to have market-oriented reforms, and even a nation with an average IQ of 85 like India decided it had ruined itself enough and made minor concessions to economic freedom back in 1991. It still is one of the most heavily regulated nations in the world, but the weight of its own mistakes force some change, albeit after decades.

So, if you live in a smart country, you know that people will reject collectivist ideas quickly. If you live in a stupid country, you know that decades later after you have become old and frail, they will realize their mistakes and change, although their stupidity will prevent quick changes.

Living in a smart country is your best option. But accept that even they have a few stupid people who still influence policy. All the same:

!(http://www.viruscomix.com/out of luck.gif)

6

When you look at the task as changing the world in your lifetime, it can be discouraging. You have to break it down into smaller goals and objectives. I know that between now and my demise that if I can advance the ball just one yard, maybe swing one person away from socialism, then I have made progress.

I appreciate Lew’s article, because within the libertarianet, it is easy to forget that much of the world thinks they wear chains of gold. That is by subverting their own lives to socialism, they can receive a greater reward over the long run.

Only a flawed conception of human nature can lead you to believe your ideas are not human.

The issue with socialism is the same with any grand social issue, whether slavery, women’s rights, religious freedom etc. You have to expose the humanity of the victims and people will adjust their behaviour. Humans are not inherently cruel or evil. We would never have had made it this far if such anti-social tendencies were essential to our nature.

Right now, the state performs as a moral laundering operation, divorcing action from consequence, reward from responsibility. When people see the costs of their actions, whether it is strip mining or deforestation, cruelty to some other group, generally they stop, and social pressures build up walls against such behaviour in the future.

Even the socialist state is presumed on the idea of justice. The way to push back is to expose that this conception of justice is a fallacy.

7

There is nothing “strange” about the appeal of Socialism. Socialism is appealing because it seemingly adresses the problem of the parasite class. There are people who have wealth they do not deserve therefore redistribution is required. So far so good. Libertarianism agrees.

The difference is only that Socialism claims capitalism is the cause of this and the state is the solution, and libertarianism claims the reverse. Some say the Socialist narrative is more succesful because it hinges on emotion and can consist of soundbites, while ours explanation must be actually understood rather than just accepted.

Another possibility could be that Socialism has much more success because it can enlist on its side the might of the state. There have been few states trully opposed to Socialism, opposed to a certain brand of Socialism jes, but they are happy to approve of Socialism in principle (eg both Nationalist China and Russia after the February revolution proffesed a socialistic ideology.) And why not, when Socialism empowers the state and cedes to it the powers over commerce.

Socialism is as successful as it is because it has on its side the Satan, while we fight our battles on our own.

As for the article itself, I would say that people around the world are nostalgic for the USSR as a lost counterbalance to the USA, not for its economic system.

8

I’d wager it’s that free markets result in smarter populations, more than the reverse.

9

I think the data in Rockwell’s article is only discouraging if you are fixated on the strategy of winning a majority support for your cause, or even worse; reforming the system. This strategy is obviously flawed. What is needed is to focus on the minority who do lean towards free markets and less government. According to Rockwell’s article, that minority is there, and its actually better then I thought. ##############################################################################################################

A conservative figure of 15% amounts to about 45 million people in the United States. Rather then waste all our effort on the 85%, it is wiser to focus most of our efforts on that 15%. The system will not be reformed by its own set of rules, but society as a whole can be. We know that the mandate of any government is purely mystical. It can vanish in a second! All we need is a minority to successfully disengage (secede). It’s about numbers and timing; however, the numbers do not require a majority. Those numbers did not exist in the former Soviet Union when it collapsed, nor do I believe they exist here today. But I believe they can be in the not too distant future thanks to the Internet and if we embark on the strategy of focusing on the minority instead of the majority.

10

Because its easy to look at the world and say that things aren’t equal and then pledge yourself to an all powerful god that will fix all of your problems. It’s also easy if you don’t need to be rationally consistent with all of your points and views, just setting social goals you would like to see and then using force to enact them… Very few lead an examined life and a really examined moral philosophy, many who do end up examining the world do so through the glasses of undeveloped emotion devoid of reason. They look at the poor and say that it must be the fault of the capitalist and that this is evil. They think not of why the poor family is poor or the plight of others, just the undeveloped toy morality of children which is then used to judge the world and detirmine how it should be whether this is possible or not.

11

Maybe they are not rejecting Freedom, but they arerejecting Personal Responsibility.

12

First off, we have a branding problem. The word “socialism,” sounds very nice, as it’s associated with “social.” Not only that, but for quite some time the public has heard socialism mostly in conjunction with ideas relating to the concept “social,” i.e. caring for others, making sure everyone is taken care of, etc. Bastiat’s unseen is only rarely brought within the public’s sphere of vision; and whether consciously or not, even most opponents of socialism are fully inundated with this view. The average conservative thinks socialists are nice but naive, “too nice,” and we get stuck with the loving mother vs stern father image of socialists vs capitalists.

The thing is, there’s plenty of truth to this. I think most socialists do have good intentions at heart. Most libertarians do too, but don’t have the clout necessary to reverse this image in one fell swoop.

Talking about “socialist slavery,” is an LOL for your average American, and average citizen of just about any country of the world.

The reason many Russians think capitalism is bad, is that the end of communism in their country meant the creation of an oligarchy with state protection, that while better than communism in many ways, brought about a whole new slew of problems. The fact that this oligarchy was created not by the free market but by the state, and that it is still supported by a controlled economy is foreign to them.

Secondly,

This is the truth and most people know that it applies to them personally. I know quite a few smokers who rejoice when smoking tax increases or restaurant bans are passed because it will help them “from without,” to smoke less or quit entirely. My own view is that society, not the government is best suited for this necessary pressure from without. I don’t consider myself a “cultural-conservative,” and don’t want to turn this into the left vs right debate that’s been trotted out ad nauseum, so let’s not start talking about what specifically society should restrict (non-violently/no-coercively/non-governmentally) but rather whether or not the fact that people need, or at least believe they need someone else to keep them away from bad habits leads them to statism. This is what I think the innate “tendency to reject freedom,” amounts to.

13

I guess I am looking to the fundamental question about whether there is any tendency toward freedom and responsibility in human nature.

I personally feel a conflict within myself. Part of me tends toward “animal” behavior–focus on physical appetites and short-term satisfaction. Yet the other part considers long term fulfillment and values nontangible sources of fulfillment like compassion, love, and honor. The former is governed by instinct, the latter, by reason.

It is this conflict that, to me, is problematic. It seems clear that most of humanity is typically governed by the “animal” side–irrational, focussed on physical satisfaction in the short term, disregard of the moral implications of socialism.

It would seem that this represents a kind of “fatal flaw” in humanity as a whole–as is taught in the JudeoChristian tradition. But it is problematic from a materialistic and libertarian perspective. It seems like the libertarian philosophy implies that human nature is congruent with the goals of liberty and responsibility, yet what we see is that there is a dominant tendency away from that.

Even if it is because people seek a restraint on their own animal nature, they are still rejecting freedom and responsibility.

But maybe it is as simple as that. There are two side of human nature. The rational part can overcome the animal, but it doesn’t often do so. The old animal nature does not change. It is always there, saying to hell with the long term and intangible values. The higher nature is there too. It can overcome the lower. It can think and control. But it can also be deceived. It can also decide to submit to the animal.

Maybe this is what is happening. I understand that many socialists may believe they are acting in accord with the higher nature–justice and all that. But they are wrong. They are actually engaing in plunder and immorality. In that case they are decieved.

Hwever, many may know full well what they are doing and don’t care. Plunder helps fill their belly today. That’s all that matters.

14

All human action is rational.

It seems clear that you have derived the nature of “most of humanity”?

15

This is a very good question. What formulates our current political ideals is largely based on concepts of history. Look at the Industrial Revolution. The majority of the populace look at it as a horror inflicted upon the world where workers were crawling around in the mud, eating bugs while our ‘capitalist’ overlords put their boot on our head. This is what people construe as capitalism, brutal oppression of the working class through the Industrial Revolution. And that is it. People are told that concept then they believe it. Of course revisionism has destroyed this myth, people are already locked into their paradigm.

Industrial Revolution - Bad

Industrial Revolution - Capitalism

Capitalism - Bad

I would like to add, I think that historical revisionism has converted more people toward liberty then any other discipline. There are few people who actual receive a libertarian education. They get a state approved one, which is why you see the bolstering of the Industrial Revolution myth. Questioning the stories of the past is what leads many into conflict with their perceived present. They begin to notice that things do not add up. There is something funny to the story they have been told and it starts to scratch at them. Ultimately it leads to desiring an answer. My experience was with the Ron Paul movement which lead me away from neoconservatism into libertarianism which presented me with the ideas of the consequences of American imperialism and our long list of imperialist endeavors in the Middle East. I was then given Lysander Spooner’s No Treason work which questioned and critiqued the Constitution. Thus such revisionism lead me to anarchism.

16

Thanks for your comment.

I guess I used the term rational here differently than mises.

I also should not have said that it was clear, since none of this is clear to me. But I am inclined to think that most of humanity is not governed by reason. At the very least, their opinions of socialism are not. There may be some sort of “reasoning” process going on in their heads, but it does not deserve the name. For this reason, I am not inclined to think that we could solve the problem by simply appealing to the reason of humanity. I think the problem is deeper than argument and logic. I think it may suggest a fundamental flaw in humanity.

We have the large majority of humanity opposed to freedom and inclined to socialism, even after they witnessed the USSR and the failure of the same system throughout the world. Why?

Is it just misinformation? Is it just that they haven’t heard the libertarian arguments?

Why do people believe lies? Why do they conduct their lives in ways that are unwise? Why do people agress against others? Why do some become criminals?

Why do I do similar things? Only out of ignorance and misinformation? Or does it go deeper than that?

17

Well if such is a flaw of humanity then why are we not susceptible to it also? We are mortals like all others.

18

According to Hoppe, primitive humans are socialistic by nature. It takes serious, willful effort to reason away socialism and establish a civilization.

19

Can you refer me to the book/article you are referring to?

Thanks.

20

Absolutely.