by Barry A. Liebling
The United States has a mixed economy. Some economic activity is genuinely free market capitalism, where everything is privately owned, privately managed, and commerce occurs by mutual consent. And, by contrast, there are a lot of business dealings where socialism prevails. The government is the owner, or the strong supervisor, or the entity that dictates procedures and outcomes.
For many years there have been polls published where respondents are asked something like, “do you prefer capitalism or socialism?” And, of course, there are sizable segments of Americans in each camp. Unfortunately, the proportion of younger, “more educated” Americans who favor socialism and are suspicious of capitalism is growing.
What accounts for this malevolent trend, and what should be done to reverse it? The short answer is – explain how the fundamental principles of capitalism are essential to human flourishing. And point out that socialism necessarily leads to servitude.
Of course, there are multiple factors that contribute to a person’s evaluation of capitalism and socialism. For a long time the schools from K-12 to college and to graduate school have been dominated by leftist partisans. Students are continuously indoctrinated with Neo-Marxist propaganda, and the “long march” campaign has been effective. While many students recognize it as fallacious, the default belief encouraged among new college graduates is that socialism is ideal and capitalism is fundamentally bad and is designed to keep the “oppressors” in power.
So what messages ought to be sent to young people that might persuade them to appreciate and promote capitalism and to recognize socialism as toxic? Here are some recommendations.
Emphasize that capitalism is based on the fundamental idea that every human being has natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. This is not merely an old cliche, it is an endorsement of individualism and personal freedom. It means each human being has self ownership. You should control your own life, make your own decisions, and live with the consequences of your actions. And this applies to everyone else as well.
Socialism is incompatible with individualism. Here the dismal notion is that each person is merely part of the collective, and each person is owned by society. Your duty is to obey and conform to the bosses above. This could be the leader, the nomenklatura, the elected or not-elected officials, or the majority of your neighbors. Fill in the blank. If you are an ordinary person you are required to submit to authority and dedicate your life to the community.
Note that this conceptualization does not focus on wealth or amounts of money that any particular person has. People endorse capitalism or slide into socialism independent of their financial situation. It is common for naive critics of leftist politics to point to famous socialists who are remarkably wealthy and accuse them of hypocrisy. They ask, how can they be genuine socialists and have so much money and property? In fact, there is no contradiction. Socialists and communists (essentially synonyms) are not against wealth. They are against people who they despise – or are not part of their gang – having wealth. Members of the socialist elite are pleased to have riches – especially if they can forcibly take it from others.
And this brings us to another important point. Sincere socialists delight in confiscating property and punishing people. Consider the popular leftist slogan “tax the rich”. The theme and the motive is to take things away – to participate in thievery. When a socialist whines that there should be no billionaires (or millionaires) the complaining scoundrel is calling for aggressive, malevolent behavior. It is typical for the leftist enthusiast to then say that the stolen riches can be used to buy goods and services (housing, food, medicine, and more) for those who are truly deserving, because they have “needs”. And socialists are always confident that they know best exactly who merits being looted.
But note well that how the plunder is spent is not really important. The essential goal is to reduce the assets and well-being of those who are designated as being outside the leftist clique and “having too much”. If their wealth is taken and then is lost or destroyed, the leftist zealot will still regard it as a win. Pulling enemies down is what is really essential, but boosting the welfare of “friends” is incidental.
Socialists are obsessed with what they deem to be the problem of wealth “inequality”. They experience an emotional charge when they detect that the richest people have much more money than the least affluent. It does not impress them that people at all levels in America live better than ever before, and certainly are more economically comfortable than those in other countries. And the agitation they experience when they notice inequality is not disappointment. It is elation because any inequality provides them with an excuse to act – “to set things right” – to meddle and forcibly take what does not belong to them.
Socialism is attractive to some young people because its proponents promise a lot of free things. Free or steeply discounted rent, food, health care and more. But when the government is in charge “free” means you do not decide on the amount or quality you receive. You take what you are given. And in the real world socialist goods and services are always sub-standard. This is reminiscent of the slogan “beggars can’t be choosers.” Note that inmates in prisons have all their needs provided free of charge.
So what is the expected result if more young people who are infatuated with socialism are enlightened regarding its true consequences? Some (perhaps many) will decide that they prefer individual freedom and will pursue the right path. But many will not be moved. There will always be people who loath personal autonomy and want everyone to be part of the herd. Hopefully they will be a diminishing minority.
*** See other entries at AlertMindPublishing.com in “Monthly Columns.” ***