Sunday, October 27, 2019

The Tyranny of Socialism


CHRISTIANITY and Socialist-Radicalism are opposite things. Christianity destroyed slavery, Socialists aim at returning to slavery—the coming slavery, as Herbert Spencer calls Socialism. Socialism means the destruction of liberty. But, says M. Vinet, “liberty is the mother of every good thing. Truth, piety, virtue delight themselves in liberty; vice and crime in slavery.” Does, then, Socialism mean vice and crime P. At any rate, its root is envy, with its necessary companion, hatred; and Bacon calls envy “the special quality of the devil.”

Socialism, as a rule, goes along, as M. de Laveleye truly says, with godless Materialism. But, says M. Vinet, “Materialism leans with all its weight on tyranny.” Then Socialist-Radicalism leans all its weight on tyranny; and this, of course, is true. The blessed word “compulsion” is, as we all know, the Socialist-Radical's shibboleth.

Christianity is the religion of righteousness—that is, of duty. Therefore it is the religion of Individualism. There can be no duty if there is no personal responsibility, and there can be no personal responsibility if there is no individual liberty. Necessarily, then, Socialist-Radicalism is opposed to Christianity, if not to all religion. “Nulle religion,” says Vacherol, “est compatible avec l'idéal de la démocratie”—meaning, of course, the ultra-democracy of Socialist-Radicalism. The word “democracy,” by itself, has no definite meaning. Democracy, in some degree, reigns wherever there are communities of men. If the most absolute despot of a savage tribe is unsuccessful in war, the democracy—that is, what is called “the people”—cut his head off and set up another. Thus the democratic principle exists everywhere. The word itself, unqualified, defines nothing.

“Christianity,” says M. Vinet, “is the immortal seed of liberty here below. Jesus Christ has irrevocably established the reign of law and individual liberty...... all worthy Liberals and Conservatives desire liberty and order; and all bad men mortally hate both the one and the other.” Rough on the poor Socialist-Radical this!

“What,” asks M. Vinet, “is the principle of Socialism? It is to place the human species under tutelage; it is to rule despotically; it is to fashion for each individual his religion, his philosophy, and his conscience. The idea is a very ancient one. It is, in fact, the Pagan idea, whose funeral knell was sounded by Christianity.”

“A Socialist State,” again says M. Vinet, “accepts for its type a family where the children remain eternally minors.” The despotic tyranny of Socialist-Radicalism is far worse than the tyranny of a single despot. “The tyranny of a multitude,” said Burke, “is a multiplied tyranny.” Thus the reason why the Socialist-Radicals aim at this multiplied tyranny is, no doubt, because the tyranny of only a single despot is not tyranny enough for them.

“Despotism,” says Coventry Patmore, “whether of an irresponsible emperor or of a multitude, is the death of nationalities.” Now, the Socialist-Radicalism of the day, as it cannot be too often repeated, means despotism, with its necessary other side, slavery. I wonder whether we have gone too far in this direction for recovery

See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics and 300 Books on DVDrom for Libertarians, Objectivists and Voluntaryists For a list of all of my books on disks and other ebooks click here

“The frantic ambition,” said Coventry Patmore, after the General Election of 1892, “of one bad man, the cowardice of a few others, and the apathy of that large portion of the community which has been sane in judgment, but insane in sloth, have brought the final evil upon us sooner than it need have come. But come it must, inasmuch as the powers of evil have always in the history of nations proved too strong in the long run for those of good. Considering what men are, the wonder is not that all great nationalities should have come to a disgraceful end, but that their ordinary duration of life should have been a thousand years or so. How any of them should have lasted a hundred must seem a miracle to those who fail to take into account the agency of the two guardian angels of national life, religion and war—religion, which keeps alive submission to law and the spirit of self-sacrifice for corporate life; and war, which silences for a time the envy and hatred of the evil and the ignorant for all superiorities, and compels them to trust their leaders on pain of annihilation.”

History undoubtedly tells us that every nation goes down when its time comes. And what brings it down is the spirit of evil becoming stronger than the spirit of good; the spirit of evil meaning the Radical spirit of envy, hatred, destruction, and disintegration, as distinguished from the beneficent, preserving, and improving spirit of Conservatism and true Liberalism.

Now, about Great Britain. Have we got on the downward course?. At any rate, envy, hatred, and malice, with their inevitable children, lying and slander, seem more and more to rage over the land. What is poor old Mr. Gladstone's strongest political card?. It is the stirring up of envy, hatred, and malice between the “classes and the masses.” He has, I believe, described Nonconformity as the backbone of Radicalism in England. But what is the motive force that brings out this form of Radicalism?. It is class and sectarian envy, hatred, and jealousy, “the special qualities of the devil.” Take away social jealousy from Nonconformity, and its Radicalism would be nowhere. The Socialist-Radicalism of the day means at bottom war against ownership of property. Now, the Nonconformist loves his property as much as anybody; but at present his sectarian envy, jealousy, and hatred outweigh his love of property, and even his hatred of Roman Catholicism in Ireland. Hatred of what is near is stronger than hatred of what is far off. Surely we have much to fear as a nation from these dire forces that have of late increased so much. Communities of bees and ants consist of ranks and orders, classes and masses. What would happen if their masses were to set up a burning antagonism against the rest in their communities? Surely bees and ants would cease to exist.

By the way, talking of Roman Catholicism, I wonder, should the Nonconformists succeed in their schemes for disestablishing and robbing the Church, whether the contingency has ever occurred to them of the whole Church of England going over to Rome, and thus England becoming again a vast Roman Catholic community, with a few petty Nonconformist sects here and there. Educated Roman Catholicism is very different now from what it was when it burned people for believing the earth went round the sun, or for not believing in winking virgins. The truths of science are no longer denied by educated Roman Catholics —as, for instance, Mr. St. Mivart.

Sunday, September 22, 2019

The Early Failures of Socialism by Hutton Webster


By Hutton Webster

Contemporary socialists unite in making the following demands. First, the State shall own and operate the instruments of production, that is, land and capital. Under this arrangement rent, interest and profits, as sources of personal income, would disappear, and private property, would consist simply of one's own clothing, household goods, money, and perhaps a house and a garden plot. Second, the leisure class shall be eliminated by requiring everybody to perform useful labor, either physical or mental. Third, the income of the State shall be distributed as wages and salaries among the workers, according to some fairer principle than obtains at present.

Socialism, thus explained, is not identical with public ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, the postal service, and other utilities. There is still a leisure class and there are still personal incomes in those countries which have gone furthest in the direction of public ownership. Similarly, labor legislation is not properly described as socialistic, since it fails to abolish private property, the factory system, and rent, interest, and profits.

Socialism is, in part, an outcome of the Industrial Revolution, which completed the separation of capital and labor. The gulf between the capitalists and the landless, property-less, wage-earning proletariat became wider, the contrasts between rich and poor became sharper, than ever before. Vastly more wealth was now produced than in earlier ages, but it was still unequally distributed. The few had too much; the many had too little. Radical reformers, distressed by these inequalities and dissatisfied with the slow progress of the labor movement and government regulation of industry, began to proclaim the necessity of a wholesale reconstruction of society.

In Great Britain the most prominent of these early radicals was Robert Owen, a rich manufacturer and philanthropist, who met great success in improving the conditions of life for his employees. He did pioneer work as an advocate of trade unionism and labor legislation, at a time when neither had many influential friends. Owen's special remedy for social ills was the establishment of small cooperative communities, each one living by itself on a tract of land and producing in common everything needed for its support. He thought that this arrangement would retain the economic advantages of the great inventions without introducing the factory system. Owen's experiments in cooperation all failed, including the one which he established at New Harmony, Indiana, in 1825. Owen thus belongs in the class of Utopian socialists, men who dreamed of ideal social systems which were never realized.

Socialism is also, in part, an outcome of the French Revolution. That upheaval destroyed so many time-hallowed institutions and created so many new ones that it gave a great impetus to schemes for the regeneration of society. French radical thinkers soon set out to purge the world of capitalism as their fathers had purged it of feudalism. Their ideas began to become popular with workingmen after the factory system, with its attendant evils, gained an entrance into France.

The workers found a leader in Louis Blanc, a journalist and author of wide popularity. The revolution of 1789, he declared, had benefited the peasants and the bourgeoisie; that of 1830 the capitalists; the next must be for the benefit of the proletariat. Blanc believed that every man had an inalienable right to remunerative employment. To provide it, the State should set up national workshops managed by the workers in each particular industry. His ideas triumphed for a time in the revolution of 1848. The Second French Republic expressly recognized "the right to labor" and proceeded to set up the national workshops. They were so badly managed, however, that Blanc himself disapproved of them. Their speedy failure brought such discredit upon him and his followers that socialism became almost extinct in France. "To speak of it," said a writer of the time, "is to deliver its funeral oration."


Tuesday, September 3, 2019

10 Books on Liberty You Probably Haven't Read (But Should)


Every libertarian (or classical liberal) has a list of his or her ten greatest books. These volumes are canonical contributions that, above all others, have profoundly shaped that libertarian’s worldview. I’m no different. And I’m sure that if my list of such canonical books is compared with the list made by, say, Jeffrey Tucker or Sarah Skwire or Dan Mitchell, there would be significant overlap.
Such lists invariably feature works by scholars who are unambiguously in the libertarian pantheon. These are works by luminaries such as Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman.

The great variety of influential books that are not (yet) as widely known and read as they deserve to be testifies to the richness of libertarian scholarly tradition.


But what of books by writers who haven’t (yet) unambiguously joined these scholars in the libertarian pantheon? Books by these scholars aren’t (yet) canonical. And if you ask 20 libertarians each to present to you a list of his or her ten favorite non-canonical books, you might well wind up with a total of 200 different books.

This great variety of influential books testifies to the richness of the libertarian scholarly tradition. It’s filled with remarkable works of scholarship that are not (yet) as widely known and read as they deserve to be.

So I here present a list—in alphabetical order according to the authors’ last names—of what are today my ten favorite non-canonical books. Each has influenced me deeply and lastingly.
This book is both a popular history of property rights and a marvelous guide to the many, and often surprising, advantages of secure property rights.
The writing style is beautiful in its simplicity; the sweep of the material covered is enormous. Its main thesis is that careful and prudent thought — “rationality” — is a scarce good that each of us exercises only to the extent that it pays us to do so.

A key implication (which Caplan develops from Geoffrey Brennan and Loren Lomasky’s pioneering 1993 book, Democracy & Decision) is this: Because in nearly all political elections every voter understands that his or her vote will have no impact on the outcome of the election, when voting each of us is free to behave carelessly and imprudently. The same individual who is a model of judiciousness and rationality when making private decisions is likely to behave recklessly while forming political opinions and expressing these in voting booths. One of many takeaways from Caplan’s book is that the greater is the scope of government action, the more we are governed irrationally.
It has long been fashionable among both conservatives and progressives to declare that free markets promote mass, bland, soul-stultifying cultural products at the expense of (in the case of conservatives) glorious high-culture products or (in the case of progressives) provocative, edgy cultural products.

Cowen’s book — smoothly blending the economic way of thinking with informed discussions of all manner of art — reveals this fashionable declaration about free markets to be bunk. Reading this book makes clear that markets not only excel at delivering consumer goods, but are also essential for the development, spread, and maintenance of almost all of the artistic products that you — no matter who you are — treasure.
 
 
Growth of the state is fueled by crises, real and imaginary. Higgs details how this(il)logic of the growth of government played out in the United States. Along the way, Higgs anticipates some of the ideas found in Caplan’s book.
 
Volume 1 celebrates the bourgeois virtues and shows these to be subtler and richer than most of us realize. Volume two explains why purely materialistic or mechanical explanations of the industrial revolution fail — often of their own internal contradictions, and always because they ignore the role of popular attitudes toward commerce and economic growth. Volume three ties it all together into a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts. The series is grounded solidly in history and sound economic theory, and no stronger case for commercial freedom and the market order has ever been penned.
 
Some will scoff at my inclusion of this book in this list. They will assert that this book is no serious work but, rather, a rollicking string of humorous observations and cynical criticisms of popular government. But they will be mistaken. While conveyed in ways that are indeed humorous—and while Mencken’s understanding of the state was certainly not romantic—his insights are unique, penetrating, revealing, and timeless.
 
Postrel demonstrates vividly, in an impressively wide range of contexts, the contest between “dynamism” and “stasis.” If the dynamists succeed, so too does humanity. If the champions of stasis succeed—whether because of widespread fear, ignorance, or greed—humanity suffers greatly.
 
Told as a story featuring the ghost of David Ricardo, this book is unmatched in the crucial task of revealing to skeptics of free trade the unseen benefits of such trade—and the unseen costs of protectionism.
 
Had Julian Simon done nothing more in his too short life other than demonstrate that the ultimate resource is the human mind, he would have deserved the Nobel Prize that he, sadly, was never awarded. Yet while Simon’s contributions are many, this one tops them all.
This thick book is chock-full of accessible data and straightforward prose that make clear that all the many worries that people have about population growth, immigration, resource depletion, and environmental degradation are either completely unwarranted or fantastically overblown. And the reason why people should quit these worries is that, in markets that are reasonably free, human creativity has a long and brilliant record not only of solving problems but also of improving humanity’s lot.
 
By all means, study the classics in the libertarian library. But read and study many more books than these. Our library contains more than enough important books to keep you occupied for a lifetime.
Donald J. Boudreaux
Donald J. Boudreaux
Donald J. Boudreaux is a senior fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a Mercatus Center Board Member, and a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

WE, by Yevgeny Zamyatin


This day in history: Yevgeny Zamyatin died on this day in 1937. He wrote a book which foreshadowed Ayn Rand's Anthem and George Orwell's 1984, about a world in which the State, animated by a collectivist ideology attempts to eradicate individuality. Yevgeny Zamyatin’s "We" was first published in English in 1924 (he wrote it in Russian, but it was suppressed in the USSR). In "We", the mathematician D-503 records his thoughts in a world in which individuals are reduced to mere numbers. The slogan of the OneState is “Long live OneState! Long live the numbers! Long live the Benefactor!”




Anthem: The Graphic Novel (Episode 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlH1T3djMCM

Anthem: The Graphic Novel (Episode 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l06-VCahjLw

Anthem: The Graphic Novel (Episode 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXNMCjqBamk

Anthem: The Graphic Novel (Episode 4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keovkt7KQkI

Anthem Audiobook by Ayn Rand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTnUFwheYGk

1984 by George Orwell | Full Audiobook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzX-ebD9Axw

Sunday, August 4, 2019

Ayn Rand: Sovietologist


Whatever one thinks of Ayn Rand as a novelist, it is fair to say that her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, contain a great deal of sophisticated political and economic thinking. Atlas Shrugged may well be the most economically literate novel ever written. Although Rand does not couch her points in the language of economic theory, there is much in Atlas Shrugged that is consistent with sound economics.  This should not be surprising given that her favorite economist was Ludwig von Mises. Moreover, her chapter “Aristocracy of Pull” is chock full of excellent political economy that fits well with Public Choice economics as well as the long history of classical liberalism dating back at least to Adam Smith. The famous “Love of Money” speech by Francisco D’Anconia contains many astute observations about the nature of money and its role in a market economy.

Less noted in this regard is Rand’s first novel, We the Living. This is a semiautobiographical story set in Russia just after the revolution of 1917. The particulars of the plot are not as interesting in this context as the level of detail Rand provides about life in the Soviet Union in the early years of communist rule. I recently reread it for the first time in 20 or 25 years and was struck by the sophistication of Rand’s analysis of the Soviet economy in practice. Unlike most contemporary western observers, she had first-hand knowledge of the terrible conditions and the reality of Soviet power.

Three Insights
Three insights in We the Living illustrate Rand’s superior understanding of Soviet socialism. First she recognized what has since been called “the myth of the plan.” If Mises, F. A. Hayek, and the other Austrians are right, it’s impossible to plan a complex economy, yet many referred to the Soviet Union as having a “planned economy” right up to its demise in 1991. A variety of plot details and sidelights in Rand’s novel illustrates that the economy was anything but planned, with the two most obvious being how Party insiders had differential access to goods and the thriving black market. Those “in charge” of the economy are accurately portrayed as clueless about how to get things done, while the black marketeers at least get goods moving. Although she never says so explicitly, it’s clear that the “planners” suffer from the exact knowledge problem the Austrians raised.

Second, the novel makes clear that in the absence of any rationality to the plan, those with the power to implement it will use that power to divert resources to themselves. More specifically, Rand understood how a system in which discretionary power is up for grabs will attract those with a comparative advantage in acquiring and using that power. Much of her portrayal of party members revolves around their competition with one another in climbing the ladder — no one hesitating to stab his comrades in the back. Those who are good at such maneuverings are able to gain power and control resources. In the end, much like in Animal Farm, things didn’t change that much: The revolution ended the exploitation of man by man and replaced it with . . . the exploitation of man by man.

Declining Living Standards
Finally, Rand vividly documents the decline in living standards for the average Russian. There are countless descriptions of the impoverishment of the citizenry, from their shrinking living space, to their dwindling food supplies, to their increasingly shabby clothing, to their growing inability to heat their homes. The party elite, of course, lives well, but the average person suffers. Rand’s depiction is important here because so many observers from the 1930s right up through the 1980s argued that the Soviet economy was an economic powerhouse that would overtake America’s. Paul Samuelson’s widely used introductory economics textbook for years had a graph showing just that. Pundits and experts both left and right believed the “official” Soviet statistics, with the left wanting to believe that socialism worked and the right wanting to justify larger military budgets. But just as in the United States during World War II, aggregates such as GDP, which in the Soviet case were not accurate anyway, mostly reflected “conspicuous production” that had little relationship to the well-being of the typical person.

We the Living makes this abundantly clear.
Rand’s novels may or may not be excellent literature, but they are excellent both at deploying good political economy and, in the case of We the Living, getting economic history right in a way most everyone else did not.
Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz is the Distinguished Professor of Free Enterprise in the Department of Economics at Ball State University, where he also is a Fellow at the Institute for Entrepreneurship and Free Enterprise. He is the author of Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Sunday, July 28, 2019

To Be Governed Is To Be Watched


To be governed, is to be watched, inspected, spied, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, seized, censured, commanded, by beings who have neither title nor knowledge nor virtue. To be governed is to have every operation, every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, indorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, corrected. To be governed is, under pretext of public utility and in the name of the general interest, to be laid under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, exhausted, hoaxed and robbed; then, upon the slightest resistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, annoyed, hunted down, pulled about, beaten, disarmed, bound, imprisoned, shot, mitrailleused, judged, condemned, banished, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and, to crown all, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.—Proudhon

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Socialism and Competition, 1910 Article


Socialism and Competition, article in Watson's Jeffersonian Magazine 1910

As to eliminating competition, we might as well speak of stopping the movement of the waves upon the ocean, of the clouds in the sky. How would strength be developed, were there no rivalry, no competition? If you are strong, it is because you have had to do battle with circumstance and competitors. If I am strong, it is because I have been a fighter, from my youth up. As long as the contest is a fair one, nobody is wronged. The loser pays— that's all. Over the whole universe is written by the hand of Jehovah the stern old Roman adage vae victis—woe to vanquished. Good heavens! How bat-like these Socialists are! They ignore the simplest facts that lie right before their eyes. On the earth, in the sea, in the air, is the fiercest competition, going on by night and by day. The race is to the swift, the battle to the strong. Nature has no pity, no hate, no love. She smites all who violate her laws, whether we know what those laws are, or not. You violate some unwritten rule as to health, and down you go, no matter how good and useful your life may be. The Pestilence does not spare the righteous: Famine takes no account of your faith: Misfortune never separates sheep from goats. "Obey my laws, or perish", is the inexorable command of Nature. The man who fails to see this is either hopelessly stupid, or the victim of hereditary superstition. Be honest with yourself, Reader. See things as they are. Be as hopeful as you can; work, like fighting fire, to make the world better; but don't enwrap yourself in delusions.

Competition is the law of life, and the survival is to the fittest. Ever and ever, Nature works to get rid of the feeble. Ever and ever, she labors to evolve the perfect. The wisdom of the sages has been devoted to the fixing of the rules which govern competition; and so long as those rules are followed, competition is as natural and as harmless as the flow of the sap and the birth of the flowers.

Work! Without haste and without rest. WORK! All nature cries it. The constellations on high proclaim it. The restless tides of the seas, bear witness to it. The bounding blood in our veins, the crowding thoughts in our minds, the eager longing in our souls are ever present, never failing reminders that the Hymn of Life sounds the order for the battle and the march. The muffled drums within us beat the everlasting Reveille; and with the sun of each day, begins the fight anew.

Abolish all this? How could we? The stream cannot rise higher than its source, and humanity cannot escape its own limitations.

Co-operation on a small scale is a perfect success. Why? Because it competes. It brings the power of unionized effort to bear against individual enterprise. But no Socialist experiment ever succeeded. It has been tried, over and over again, both in America and in Europe, in ancient as well as modern times. Wayland himself chose a nice lot of human angels, and tried his fad at Ruskin, Tennessee. He discovered that his cherubs were just human bipeds, and Ruskin failed to become a Paradise. Instead, there was a lovely row among the Elect, and the colony was torn to pieces by factions. Scores of times, carefully selected men and women, who imagined themselves congenially altruistic, have turned their self-complacent backs upon us common clod-hoppers, and gone off to themselves to make a Garden of Eden. But never have they succeeded in making one. The serpent invariably enters; and it is the old story of Paradise Lost.

If the selected colonies fail to make a success of Socialism, how could the miscellaneous mass do it? If elemental human traits bring dismal failure to the chosen, congenial, altruistic groups, how can a person gifted with ordinary common-sense bring himself to believe that a similar experiment would succeed, when made with all the wicked people taken into the venture? If Socialism meets with invariable failure, when tried by the best people, could you reasonably expect better results from it, when the worst people are included in the venture?