Because I have – for whatever odd reason – encountered so many self-described socialists in academia, I was jotting down some thoughts about why the entire concept of socialism is untenable, illogical, and entirely unreasonable. I’ve come up with three flawed assumptions or neglected truths that cause the ideal that is socialism to collapse upon itself.
Let me know what you think. 1. The reality that man is not inherently good: Even lacking a religious perspective, a quick glance at the history of mankind should demonstrate quite vividly that human beings are selfish, prideful, and ambitious creatures with a capacity for cruelty that is unrivaled on this Earth (think torture). These selfish impulses, personal egos, and often ruthless ambitions precipitate a willingness to engage in deliberate dishonesty, which forms the backdrop of most of mankind’s evil deeds (consider: almost all of the evils committed human history have been rooted either in selfish ambition or a simple, yet powerful lie). Further, it is not without reason that we routinely speak of honesty, selflessness, accountability, and compassion as virtues, and that such characteristics are extolled in every major religion - even among secular humanists. That is because these values are inherently good and universally desirable, making them elusive for humans and comparatively scarce in the world. If man is not inherently good, a utopian Socialist society becomes unattainable, because the traits noted above would prevent the maintenance of a community consisting solely of equals and characterized by universal harmony. Ambitions, pride, envy, and greed would inevitably sow division and discontent, leading to the downfall of the socialist community. Thus, given the inherent flaws of humanity, Socialism remains an idea that is entirely unrealistic. 2. The negligence of unintended consequences and the human variable - human emotions, psychologies, and mentalities: What many fail to consider is that a Socialist system that continuously redistributes wealth will have an unintended although inevitable impact on the psychologies of those contributing to the system. Contributors will gradually recognize that no matter how hard they work, regardless of how much time and effort they put into their craft, their career, their everyday tasks, they are not rewarded with more freedoms, privileges, or resources. They will discern that no matter their amount of input, the output [to them] will remain the same. Given that most human beings are not sufficiently motivated by the intangible value of personal fulfillment, this realization will act as a disincentive to work to contribute to the Socialist system. This disincentive will directly manifest itself in a number of ways. It will result in the demotivation of the individual, and considering it is a well established fact that an unmotivated work force is less productive, this will create a problem for the overall Socialist community – particularly if [when] the population as a whole comes to this realization. Concomitant with a lack of motivation, people in the Socialist community will become complacent. They will lack individual assertiveness and shun hard work upon seeing that they are not tangibly rewarded for it anyway. Finally, upon recognizing that their individual input is meaningless, people will lose their sense of accountability and responsibility. Their work becomes trivial, indicating to them that they are not personally responsible for their own (or eventually perhaps, their family’s) well-being. Ultimately, this means that Socialism produces a population that is not only unmotivated and complacent, but also lacks a sense of accountability and responsibility. This also means that it will produce less wealth, meaning the wealth to be distributed will continually decrease until one reaches a point at which everyone is economically less prosperous than even the poor of a capitalist system. About the further consequences of such a shift in mentalities, one can only speculate. Ultimately, however, it becomes very clear that a Socialist system creates a degenerate people. One idealistic counter-argument might be that the community as a whole will recognize the worth of their individual enterprises and will be motivated to work hard for the good of the community. What is inevitable, however – unless you have been living somewhere other than on this Earth and fail to take into account the human psyche– is that a certain segment of the population will either not come to this realization or they will decide that it is preferable to benefit from other people’s hard work while indulging themselves in perpetual laziness. This, in turn, will breed resentment and foster division(s) within the Socialist community, ultimately, once again, breaking the community apart. 3. The failure to realize that in order to create and maintain a socialist community, one has to continuously redistribute wealth, and in order to continuously redistribute wealth, someone will have to do the distributing – someone will have power: If you have someone who has power in a supposedly socialist community, it is no longer a socialist utopia. Furthermore, even if you can find the most virtuous, honest, just, selfless, and committed individual or group of people who can perform the role of wealth distributor without abusing this power by exploiting the people and thereby creating additional advantages or luxuries for himself/themselves, a generation will pass, and you will once again have to find such individual(s). The chances of finding such perfect (let’s be honest: divine) people even once are, even for the most optimistic, just about nonexistent, but doing so repeatedly, over multiple generations? Only an extreme case of self-delusion would compel anyone to believe that that is possible. Conversely, one might argue that the community as a whole will do the redistributing. Unfortunately, it is again extremely likely (or inevitable...) that some people in this community will not want to give up their extra wealth and/or resources. What to do with these people? Execute them? That is not only immoral, but tyrannical, and will produce bitterness, division, and, eventually, rebellion, once again (I sense a pattern here) destroying the Socialist community. Exile them? You will end up exiling so many people from the community that these exiled people will form their own communities and very likely either simply a) outperform your Socialist community or b) violently destroy or enslave your Socialist community. Thus, the prospects of long-term survival for such a community, unless it lives in complete and utter isolation (also largely impossible in today’s world) are nonexistent. The Alternative Having established the tripartite foolishness of Socialism, we have to offer an alternative. The obvious alternative is capitalism. The problem with extreme and entirely unregulated capitalism, however, is that this system itself depends on the existence of competition between parties. Unrestrained, however, the end result of capitalism is that one group outcompetes the other group(s), resulting in the creation of monopolies. With monopolies, there is no competition, meaning capitalism will have run its course, self-destructed, and created a corporate dictatorship in which the power lies in the hands of the innovative and fortunate few (or one?). So how do we prevent this from happening? Putting into place a system of regulations that, without strangling businesses or discouraging creative entrepreneurship, prevents the capitalist system from running its full course. A system that continues to foster competition and to encourage individual enterprise. A system that does not oppress large and established businesses and at the same time offers additional incentives to the founding of new ones. Implemented effectively, such a system of regulations would maintain a capitalist system that produces the maximum amount of wealth for the maximum number of people and still maintains the intangible advantage of fostering traits like diligence, accountability, and individual initiative. The moral of the story? As with so many things on this Earth, the key is – everything (including various forms of public welfare for those in desperate need, but except loving Jesus and loving our neighbors as ourselves) in moderation. Thanks for stopping by - have a blessed day!
4 Comments
A few days ago, I read about an English slave-trading captain’s voyage to West Africa to the court of the King of Dahomey, an African slave-trading kingdom in the 18th century. There, utterly appalled, the Englishman noticed an 18-month old baby boy chained to a pole. Upon inquiring why this child was being held in this manner, he recounts, “it was to be sacrificed that night to the god Egbo, for his prosperity.”
Sacrificing a child for the prosperity of the one we worship. Does that sound familiar at all? In our hedonistic age that is driven by self-fulfillment, self-realization, self-advancement, and the unashamed prioritization of individualism, whom do we worship? Take a minute to look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself: "whom do I worship?" For most people, the answer will not be “God.” On the contrary, for many, the honest, self-reflecting, self-aware answer will be “some form of material wealth” or “myself.” Even if it is the former – material wealth – can we not ultimately tie this desire for and worship of material things back to our deep, personal longing to enrich our own lives, our own selves? For whose sake do we desire wealth? In most cases, it is for our own. Why do we want that new pair of sneakers? Why do we so desperately need that new iPhone? Why do we desire a fancy new car? Because we believe that these material things will make us more desirable and bring us pleasure. Inextricably linked with the pleasure-seeking love of material wealth and the rejection of God is the adulation of the means through which we acquire this wealth: our own talents, our intellectual capacities, our reputations, and our individual achievements. Realizing this, can we then conclude that, in reality, if we are not worshiping God, we are most likely worshiping our own self and all of its attendant parts? I believe that we can and I believe that we are. Which leads me to my main point. The overwhelming majority of abortions happen because we decide that a child would be inconvenient, would interfere with our own aspirations, or would be unsustainable at this point in our lives. In short, we decide for abortion because we are concerned, first and foremost, with how a child would detrimentally affect our lives (or we convince ourselves that we are not at a point in our lives where we could offer a child much in the way of material comforts and that therefore, it is better for the child that it is never born in the first place – in this instance of warped moral reasoning, death triumphs over life and opportunity). This begs the question: are we not opting for abortion in order to enrich our own lives? Are we not sacrificing our own children for our own prosperity? You see, we in the West tend to think that our sense of morality and our level of civilization are superior to that of past cultures and societies. We subscribe to a notion of inevitable “progress,” and so we believe that whatever is new and “progressive” is moral and good. Plus, after all, peoples as civilized as we are would never engage in something as barbarically evil as sacrificing an innocent child in the name of the individual or public good. Yet that line of thinking serves to obscure a fundamental and immutable truth: the human capacity for evil. As the English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge said: “The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.” Our redefinition of infanticide and child sacrifice as “abortion” or somehow meaning that one is “in favor of women’s reproductive rights” demonstrates the deeply engrained selfishness, deviousness, and callousness of our human nature. This should compel us to question the rationales and the euphemisms we routinely employ to veil and yet justify our own wickedness. If we do not, like the King of Dahomey, we recklessly rationalize ourselves into hopeless delusion, ultimately convincing ourselves in our self-worship that to kill our own children will bring us prosperity and that it is therefore morally justifiable. __________________________________________________________________________________ Note: This post is not intended to demean, insult, condemn, or shame anyone. Its goal is to compel the assumption of an alternative perspective and to serve as a reminder that the everyday things we take for granted may not be so self-evident after all. We have all made mistakes in our lives that would comprise a list too long for any human hand to complete in a lifetime. Fortunately, we serve a merciful God whose grace is inexhaustible and readily available to each and every one of us. 1 John 1:9 - If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. |
AuthorChristopher is a student in the Ph.D. program in History at the University of North Carolina. He enjoys following sports, going to church on Sundays, and discussing contemporary issues in American society. Archives
Mai 2015
Categories |