Alex Touchet

Socialism sounds like a utopia. Imagine a world in which no one goes hungry, everyone has accessible medical care, and college is free. Socialists dream of a world where everyone is provided for equally. For many middle class families, free medical care and food would be extremely beneficial. Socialism’s intent to divide wealth evenly sounds enticing, but how effective are its policies? Would a socialist country even participate in international trade? History does not confirm any of socialism’s wishful thinking. Past examples of socialist takeovers and economic implementation only disprove the effectiveness of socialism in the real world.

It is fair to say history has shown more instances in which socialism fails than in which it succeeds. Russia’s Red Terror during the early 20^th century serves as a prime example for how easily a government that feels threatened by a percentage of its population can turn against it in order to preserve the longevity of socialism. Grigory Zinoviev describes the essence of the Soviet Union’s goal in imprisoning, torturing, and murdering scores of its own people: “To overcome our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated” (Winter 13).

Socialism is specifically defined as “a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.” A state is defined as “1) a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory, or 2) a government or politically organized society having a particular character.” Economy is “the structure or conditions of economic life in a country, area, or period; also: an economic system” (Merriam-Webster).

Socialism is an altruistic system. The goal of socialism is to equalize wealth distribution so the ninety-nine percent of people who have less can exist at the same level as the one percent of people who have the most. Socialism’s intent is, ideally speaking, a noble one; in the real world, however, well-intended goals do not always result in a functional system. The essential problem with socialism is not its intent is immoral, but it requires humans to interconnect in a way diametrically opposed to human nature. This truth alone implies such a system would, in the least, have many logistical problems.

This will be a critical analysis of socialism’s blatant failure in both past and present human society. Points pertaining to historical examples and economic theory will be used to explain why this is true. I will first show socialism’s inability to maintain an effective economy compared to an effective capitalist model. I will also explain the greatest ethical flaw of socialism: it requires the human race be altruistic. I will also address and refute arguments for past nations’ lack of relevancy to modern socialism. I will explain how the proposed solution to socialism’s problematic economy through quota implementation has failed before and cannot solve its need for a true market economy, and I will show how a socialist nation in a world of capitalism will never survive. In the end I will address the socialist solution for its unwieldy human populous and its occasional lack of Marxist zeal by demonstrating the past failure of the Bolshevik Takeover.

My first argument will demonstrate socialism’s failure in comparison to capitalism’s modern success. The socialist system fails because it intends to take the basic mechanism for modern capitalism, that of individual economic freedom, and replace it with the authority of the State. The capitalist approach to economic efficiency is, as Milton Friedman puts it, is “misleadingly simple.” His premise is two parties will not voluntarily participate in an exchange if they do not believe they will benefit from it. This basis for economic efficiency functions on more than just the individual level; it applies to all economics. Friedman extrapolates to explain how the principle of supply and demand occurring as a result of voluntary action between people serves to create an efficient system between millions of people which “enables [them] to cooperate peacefully in one phase of their life while each one goes about his own business in respect of everything else” (Friedman 13).

Friedman’s argument is socialism has no realistic substitute for this system of voluntary exchange. He demonstrates how even Russia, “the standard example of a large economy that is supposed to be organized by command” (9), is routinely infiltrated by many capitalist economic traits. Whether legally or illegally, voluntary cooperation between individuals supplants itself where, according to a Marxist model, the state should have unyielding control.

In the labor market individuals are seldom ordered to work at specific jobs; there is little actual direction of labor in this sense. Rather, wages are offered for various jobs, and individuals apply for them — much as in capitalist countries. Once hired, they may subsequently be fired or may leave for jobs they prefer. Numerous restrictions affect who may work where, and, of course, the laws prohibit anyone from setting up as an employer — although numerous clandestine workshops serve the extensive black market. Allocation of workers on a large scale primarily by compulsion is just not feasible; and neither, apparently, is complete suppression of private entrepreneurial activity (10).

My second argument will explain how taking incentives out of an economic system does not serve to equalize wealth, but to destroy the market’s functionality. Within a free market, workers function in accordance with the principle of supply and demand on multiple scales. To feed one’s family, one must attain a certain level of profit on a timely basis. For a company to remain competitive in the business scene, it must meet consumer demands for its stylized brands. For nations to be capable of making beneficial trade deals with other countries, they must first be capable of producing what those countries want. Incentive is a key element in all economic transactions, but socialism intends to function without it.

Mark Perry explains how socialism fails because it does not utilize three major incentive-based components. First, the system of price within the market functions “so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance.” The mechanism a simple price-tag symbolizes is a crucial element to a functional economy. The existence of a flexible price system broadcasts information about surplus or scarcity within the market and enables it to adapt to the ever-fluctuating economic landscape. Perry uses an example of oil restriction by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the 1970s to exemplify how prices affect the market. Oil prices skyrocketed, and both buyers and distributors reacted accordingly. “Consumers … were forced to change their behavior dramatically. [They] reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil.”

Second, socialism lacks a coherent profit and loss system. This system is the mechanic used to gauge the general success of any business within the market. Businesses that do well receive profit while those that do not are met with harmful losses. This functions as a “disciplinary system” that effectively regulates the economy in a way that weeds out the ineffective business firms and rewards the efficient ones. Under a socialist system, however, “there is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated” (Perry).

Third, socialism takes away the right to private property in favor of ownership by the state. An example of how the dissolution of private property is an issue is Britain’s 16^th century “tragedy of the commons.” This refers to the occasion in Britain when villages publicly owned certain land for open grazing of cattle. Instead of creating an effective resource for public use, however, the grazing land quickly became overused and barren. The creation of a communal resource did not qualify as a first step to a Marxist utopia of economic equality; it was abused and exploited until it became literally worthless. Perry explains how publicly owned resources are not supported by individual incentives to inspire good stewardship. “While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste.” If everyone owns something, then no one owns it; and if no one owns it, then no one will take care of it. Therefore, “the failure of socialism around the world is a ‘tragedy of commons’ on a global scale.”

My third argument will explain the basis for socialism’s failure: it cannot function alongside flawed human nature. Socialism goes against the basic principles humans live by. Very few people can truthfully admit they care about the economic well-being of everyone other than themselves enough to dole out labor for their sake. That idea simply does not mesh with human nature. Socialism ignores this fact entirely. After all, the premise for socialism originated from the Marxist-Leninist belief the ideal world would exist in a state of global communism. People who uphold this principle must believe human nature is inherently altruistic; if they do not, their entire worldview falls apart. The lie of humanity’s altruistic nature is the only reason socialists today have been capable of forging such a large political following. For a functional economic model to exist, those involved in it must see humanity for what it is, not what they want it to be.

Some socialists suggest past examples of socialist experimentation are irrelevant to their proposed “modern model.” More specifically, the first argument is the failures of socialism’s failed implementation in countries such as Russia throughout history are irrelevant to what true socialism aims to achieve. Bertell Ollman states in an article supporting socialism’s vast modern potential, “Where there is little to share, socialism will have difficulty working, but where material abundance already exists and is simply badly distributed, socialism can flourish.” He argues past nations’ failed experimentation in socialism should be attributed to how those nations did not contain the necessary elements for socialism’s success. For socialism to work, he claims, it must have both democratic principles and a populous willing to cooperate with the state. His socialism is one based on individual choice, not just state-based control (ironically so, because socialism requires the dissolution of private property and identity). According to Ollman, even Marx believed countries needed certain material elements before they could successfully function, such as industrialization and an altruistic population.

The author makes some partially correct points, but assumes others that are fairly naïve (rather than progressive). While the fact of Russia’s lack of necessary components (cooperative populous) for an effective socialistic model is correct, the idea a society will one day reach such a level of collective ability to unite in total submission to a state-controlled economy is ludicrous. According to Ollman’s representation of socialism’s extensive list of mandatory components, a viable society would require a population willing to cooperate by both handing away its economic independence and learning to work for the incentive of the “greater good” rather than profit. This argument’s flaw lies not in false representations of history, but in how it assumes a human population is capable of surpassing that which faulted Russia or China. A whole country of people will never be able to transcend the divide between social classes to work together for the common good; it is not that no one wishes for such a reality, but that they do not have the capacity to enable it.

Again, the flaw in a socialist system lies in the problem of the human condition. Humans are imperfect, greedy, and capable of great evil. No individual can achieve in any respect a life devoid of selfishness. Socialism requires humanity to be truly autonomous in nature; since humans are not capable of autonomy, socialism is therefore incapable of functionality. Attempting to force socialism upon society is equivalent to forcing a square peg into a round hole: once it begins to fit, the hole itself has been dealt nearly irreparable damage. Essentially, the idea socialism will not function without the correct conditions is true; however, to believe those conditions are even remotely possible is contrary to human nature itself.

The second point I will refute is socialism’s attempts at reconciling the difficult nature of a population with their altruistic views by demonstrating the consequences of such action. Socialist groups in the past have tried to circumvent this difficulty of human nature by commandeering society to implement their system. Once the state is able to make socialism a reality, its citizens would ideally realize the new position is superior to the capitalist model. This is a hopeful, but false, proposition.

The Bolshevik party of 20^th-century Russia tried to accomplish exactly this. The first free elections in Russian history occurred during the Constitutional Convention of 1917. The Bolsheviks held only one-fourth of the seats; ironically, they only represented a minority of the Russian people, even though “Bolshevik” was derived from the Russian word for “majority.” This serves to prove the “People’s Revolution” was never a collective uprising against the government; it was a political minority that felt it necessary to force economic revolution upon over an entire population. Instead of being met with the open arms of civilians hoping for a better, more efficient economic system, the Bolshevik revolutionaries were met with a civil war waged primarily by the White (anti-Bolshevik) Party that lasted five years and resulted in over three million officially documented deaths (Wheatcroft).

As I have explained, socialism is inherently detrimental to society no matter how attractive it may initially appear. Human nature is observably incompatible with the precepts of socialism, as can be derived from both modern and past examples of socialist systems. Sadly, political leaders and social rights activists today do not see this as reality. Whether their motivations are altruistic or not, we must remember the repercussions the institution of socialism can and will have on society. To avoid the possibility of dissolution of private property and a complete takeover by the State, citizens must actively vote against politicians who exhibit a socialist leaning. In the case of socialism’s introduction into society against the will of the populous, it is the moral obligation of the citizenry under such a government to fight against those oppressive policies, for they are not only protecting their right to property and individual identity, but also that of the following generation.

Works Cited