Socialism: Science Or Cyanide?

Authored by Lawrence Reed From the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Editor’s note: Marianna Davidovich, head of external relations at FEE, recently published a booklet titled “The Buried Stories of Communism & Socialism.” The following essay by FEE’s president emeritus, Lawrence W. Reed, appears in it as the Afterword.

In this volume, Marianna Davidovich vividly recounts the world’s horrific experiences with the evil of communism. It’s a ghastly record, littered with the bodies of a hundred million victims and the lost liberties of hundreds of millions more. No one should have ever expected otherwise; even the founder of modern communist ideology, Karl Marx, advocated extreme violence as a necessary ingredient in the communist formula.

What the world refers to as “communist” countries—such as the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, and others Marianna discusses—would not be labeled as such by Karl Marx himself. He postulated that communism would be the end game of all history and would be characterized by government “withering away” after a period of socialism and its brutal “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

So, what we widely refer to as communist countries are, according to both Marx and the governments of those very countries themselves, socialist. None of them called themselves communist; all of them proudly adopted the socialist label. The full name of the old Soviet Union, for example, was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Marx’s prediction that socialist dictatorships would eventually dissolve into government-less, communist utopias was embraced by pseudo-intellectuals as some sort of messianic prophecy. But how could Marx know the future of his own country, let alone that of others? Was he a palm reader? Did he use tarot cards, a crystal ball, or a Ouija board? Or did God (in whom he didn’t believe) generously gift him with visionary powers that no one else has?

Of course, none of those things apply here. Marx was no fortune-teller. He was a charlatan, an angry and nasty scribbler with vile, racist, and anti-Semitic tendencies. He mooched off others all his life. As British historian Paul Johnson explained in his book, “Intellectuals,” Marx was cruel to his own family. He yearned for the violence his predicted socialist dictatorships would produce. Hardly anyone showed up for his funeral.

Marx’s notion that under communism, government would “wither away” was always a nonsensical non-starter. He never explained how or why that would occur. What would possibly prompt dictators with absolute power to one day just walk away from it? That’s more like a dumb fairy tale than a prophecy.

Now that Marianna has provided the awful details of death and destruction in the countries influenced by Marx’s teaching, the big remaining question is WHY? Why does socialism so naturally produce mayhem on an industrial scale?

Wait a minute, you ask.

What about the peaceful “democratic socialism” of Scandinavia?

Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They have no minimum wage laws, almost no interference with prices and the market forces of supply and demand. They have lower taxes on business and more school choice than the United States. They boast trade-based, globalized economies, and few if any nationalized industries.

The prime minister of Denmark recently declared, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” The Index of Economic Freedom ranks Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as among the freest (most capitalist) in the world.

It’s true that after World War II, Scandinavian countries stumbled into generous welfare states, but being no more than a welfare state is not by itself dictionary socialism. More to the point, those nations eventually turned away from even that—cutting taxes and spending and reviving private sector entrepreneurship. Margaret Thatcher forced the same changes in Britain when, by the late 1970s, her country’s welfare state turned Britain into “the sick man of Europe.”

When countries adopt a blend of socialism and capitalism—a formula once termed “the middle way”—socialists claim credit for progress real or imagined. But repeatedly, such situations reveal that most if not all the “progress” such places achieve is not because of the socialism they’ve adopted, but because of the capitalism they haven’t yet destroyed. Capitalism produces wealth (even Marx admitted to that), whereas socialism and socialists simply confiscate and redistribute it.

Back to the central question: Why does socialism so naturally produce mayhem on an industrial scale?

One very big reason is its accumulation and centralization of power, the most toxic motivation in human history. The desire to dominate and control, to plan other people’s lives, to push others around and take their stuff, to monopolize one corner of society after another—all these elements of a “power trip” are part and parcel of the socialist vision.

But socialism promises to help the poor and the needy, you say! Well, of course, it promises such things. How far would it get if its advocates told the truth? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. all proclaimed “solidarity with the people,” especially the poor. They never honestly declared, “Give us power, and we will crush dissent and throw you to the dogs for opposing our plans!”

Socialism is rightly and widely perceived as diametrically opposed to capitalism. So, it can’t possibly be defined as acts of caring, sharing, giving, and being compassionate toward the needy. There is demonstrably more caring, sharing, giving, and compassion toward the needy under capitalism!

Even when it comes to most foreign aid, capitalist countries are the donors and socialist countries are the recipients. You can’t give it away or share it with anybody if you don’t create it in the first place, and socialism offers utterly no theory of wealth creation, only wealth confiscation and consumption.

Note that socialists do not propose to accomplish their objectives by mutual consent. They do not advocate raising the money for their plans by way of bake sales or charitable solicitations. Your participation is not voluntary. From start to finish, socialism’s defining characteristic is not so much the promises meant to beguile but rather, the method by which it implements its agenda—FORCE. If it’s voluntary, it’s not socialism. It’s that simple.

In theory, practice, and outcome, socialism is profoundly anti-social. Here’s why:

The plans of socialists are more important than yours. Why? Because they say so. Isn’t that reason enough? “The more the State plans,” wrote Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, “the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.” But socialists don’t care about that because what they have in mind is surely more noble than anything us peasants are thinking. Socialism is profoundly anti-individual because it seeks to homogenize people in a giant, collectivist blender.
Socialists are know-it-alls and know-nothings, simultaneously. This is a remarkable achievement, perhaps socialism’s singular contribution to sociology. Even if a socialist’s own life is a mess, he still knows how to run everybody else’s. Even if he doesn’t believe there’s a God, he thinks the State can be one. F. A. Hayek nailed it when he wrote, “The curious task of economics is to convince men of how little they know about what they imagine they can design.”
Socialism rejects biological science. No climate-change denier denies that climate exists. But socialists claim that if there’s such a thing as human nature, they can abolish and reinvent it. Humans are individuals, with no two alike in every way, but socialists believe they can homogenize and collectivize us into an obedient blob. It doesn’t bother them to punish individual success and achievement even if the result is equal impoverishment. They believe that human beings will work harder and smarter for the State than they will for themselves or their families. This is much closer to witchcraft than science.
Socialists call the cops for everything. Have you ever noticed that the socialist agenda is not a page of helpful suggestions, or a list of tips for better living? When they’re in charge, you don’t get to say, “No, thanks.” Freedom of choice? No, sir! Socialist ideas are so good, the old saying goes, that they must be mandatory and opposing views must be censored. Deep inside every socialist, even the naïve but well-meaning ones, a totalitarian demon is struggling to get out. This is what socialists eventually do with such monotonous regularity that you can absolutely count on it.
Socialism is more than anti-capitalism. It’s anti-capital. In his remarkable book, “Intellectuals,” British historian Paul Johnson penned a blistering chapter about Karl Marx. Johnson quotes Marx’s own mother as famously remarking that she wished her son Karl “would accumulate some capital instead of just writing about it.” Mrs. Marx was on to something. Karl and his acolytes, to one degree or another, make war on the single most powerful generator of the material wealth that improves the lives of people—namely, private property and its accumulation by private, profit-seeking individuals who invest and create and employ. Wherever such lunacy gains power, it marches its subjects backward towards the Stone Age.
Conflict is their God. From Marx to socialists of the present day, conflict is everything.If it’s not present, they will invent it. After all, everyone is either a victim or a villain, an oppressor or part of the oppressed. Conflict is the way history unfolds, so they tell us. And like palm readers and tarot card practitioners, they declare the future to be on their side. This always-angry perspective rules out a spirit of gratitude, especially toward capitalists. Socialists never show up at a business of any size with signs exclaiming “Thank you for taking risks, providing products and employing people.”

One of the greatest economists ever, Ludwig von Mises, wrote this eloquent summation:

A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

Communism as envisioned by its intellectual father Karl Marx is an unachievable and undesirable fantasy. In the real world, efforts to realize Marx’s delusions are simply full-blown, unadulterated socialism. And that’s the cyanide that both Mises and Marianna are warning us about.

Loading…

Originally Posted at; https://www.zerohedge.com//

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
December 7, 2024
2 views

From Marcus Aurelius To Omar Little: A Man’s Code Is Vital

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

With Thanksgiving weekend still fresh in our memory, my gratitude centers not on the usual holiday platitudes, but on something that has become increasingly precious in our artificial age: authentic relationships – both family and lifelong friends – that deepen rather than fracture under pressure. What binds these relationships, I’ve come to realize, isn’t shared opinions or circumstances, but a shared code – an unwavering commitment to principles that transcends the shifting sands of politics and social pressure. I’m particularly grateful for my inner circle – friends I’ve known since elementary school and family members whose bonds have only strengthened through the crucible of recent years.

Like many others who spoke out against Covid tyranny, I watched what I thought were solid relationships dissolve in real time. As the owner of a local brewery and coach of my kids’ sports teams, I had been deeply embedded in my community – a “man about town” whose friendship and counsel others actively sought. Yet suddenly, the same people who had eagerly engaged with me would scurry when they saw me coming down the street. Professional networks and neighborhood connections evaporated at the mere questioning of prevailing narratives. They reacted this way because I broke orthodoxy, choosing to stand for liberal values – the very principles they claimed to champion – by rejecting arbitrary mandates and restrictions.

In this moment of testing, the difference between those who lived by a consistent code and those who simply followed social currents became starkly clear. Yet in retrospect, this winnowing feels more like clarification than loss. As surface-level relationships fell away, my core relationships – decades-long friendships and family bonds – not only endured but deepened. These trials revealed which bonds were authentic and which were merely situational.

The friendships that remained, anchored in genuine principles rather than social convenience, proved themselves infinitely more valuable than the broader network of fair-weather friends I lost.

What strikes me most about these enduring friendships is how they’ve defied the typical narrative of relationships destroyed by political divisions. As Marcus Aurelius observed, “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” Despite taking opposite sides of the dialectic on political and cultural issues over the decades, we found ourselves united in opposition to the constitutional transgressions and rising tyranny of the past few years – the lockdowns, mandates, and systematic erosion of basic rights. This unity emerged not from political alignment but from a shared code: a commitment to first principles that transcends partisan divisions.

In these contemplative moments, I’ve found myself returning to Aurelius’s Meditations – a book I hadn’t opened since college until Joe Rogan and Marc Andreessen’s excellent conversation inspired me to revisit it. Aurelius understood that a personal code – a set of unwavering principles – was essential for navigating a world of chaos and uncertainty. The connection feels particularly apt – like my own friend group, Rogan’s platform exemplifies a code of authentic discourse in our age.

Critics, particularly on the political left, often talk about needing their “own Joe Rogan,” missing entirely what makes his show work: its genuine authenticity. Despite being historically left-leaning himself, Rogan’s willingness to engage in real-time thinking with guests across the ideological spectrum and across a broad variety of topics, his commitment to open inquiry and truth-seeking, has paradoxically led to his estrangement from traditional liberal circles – much like many of us who’ve found ourselves branded as apostates for maintaining consistent principles.

This commitment to a code of authentic discourse explains why organizations like Brownstone Institute – despite being routinely smeared as “far right” – have become a crucial platform for independent scholars, policy experts, and truth-seekers. I witnessed this firsthand at a recent Brownstone event, where, unlike most institutions that enforce ideological conformity, diverse thinkers engaged in genuine exploration of ideas without fear of orthodoxy enforcement. When attendees were asked if they considered themselves political liberals ten years ago, nearly 80% raised their hands.

These are individuals who, like my friends and me, still embrace core liberal values – free speech, open inquiry, rational debate – yet find themselves branded as right-wing or conspiracy theorists merely for questioning prevailing narratives.

What unites this diverse community is their shared recognition that the reality being presented to us is largely manufactured, as explored in “The Information Factory,” and their commitment to maintaining authentic discourse in an age of enforced consensus.

In The Wire, Omar Little, a complex character who lived by his own moral code while operating outside conventional society, famously declared, “A man got to have a code.” Though a stick-up man targeting drug dealers, Omar’s rigid adherence to his principles – never harming civilians, never lying, never breaking his word – made him more honorable than many supposedly “legitimate” characters. His unwavering dedication to these principles – even as a gangster operating outside society’s laws – resonates deeply with my experience.

Like Rogan’s commitment to open dialogue, like Brownstone’s dedication to free inquiry, like RFK Jr.’s determination to expose how pharmaceutical and agricultural interests have corrupted our public institutions: these exemplars of authentic truth-seeking mirror what I’ve found in my own circle. My friends and I may have different political views, but we share a code: a commitment to truth over comfort, to principle over party, to authentic discourse over social approval. This shared foundation has proven more valuable than any superficial agreement could be.

In these times of manufactured consensus and social control, the importance of this authentic foundation becomes even clearer. The 2012 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which made it legal to propagandize American citizens, merely formalized what many had long suspected. It represented the ultimate betrayal of the government’s code with its citizens – the explicit permission to manipulate rather than inform. As anyone not under the spell has come to realize – we’ve all been thoroughly “Smith-Mundt’ed.” This legal framework helps explain much of what we’ve witnessed in recent years, particularly during the pandemic – when those who proclaimed themselves champions of social justice supported policies that created new forms of segregation and devastated the very communities they claimed to protect.

This disconnect becomes even more apparent in the realm of charitable giving and social causes, where “virtue laundering” has become endemic. The absence of a genuine moral code is nowhere more evident than in our largest charitable institutions. While many charitable organizations do crucial work at the local level, there’s an unmistakable trend among large NGOs toward what a friend aptly calls the “philanthropath class.”

Consider the Clinton Foundation’s activities in Haiti, where millions in earthquake relief funds resulted in industrial parks that displaced farmers and housing projects that never materialized. Or examine the BLM Global Network Foundation, which purchased luxury properties while local chapters reported receiving minimal support. Even major environmental NGOs often partner with the world’s biggest polluters, creating an illusion of progress while fundamental problems persist.

This pattern reveals a deeper truth about the professional charitable class – many of these institutions have become purely extractive, profiting from and even amplifying the very issues they purport to solve. At the top, a professional philanthropic class collects fancy titles in their bios and flashes photos from charity galas while avoiding any genuine engagement with the problems they claim to address. Social media has democratized this performance, allowing everyone to participate in virtue theater – from black squares and Ukrainian flag avatars to awareness ribbons and cause-supporting emojis – creating an illusion of activism without the substance of real action or understanding. It’s a system entirely devoid of the moral code that once guided charitable work – the direct connection between benefactor and beneficiary, the genuine commitment to positive change rather than personal aggrandizement.

The power of a genuine code becomes most evident in contrast with these hollow institutions. While organizations and social networks fracture under pressure, I’m fortunate that my closest friendships and family bonds have only grown stronger. We’ve had fierce debates over the years, but our shared commitment to fundamental principles – to having a code – has allowed us to navigate even the most turbulent waters together. When the pandemic response threatened basic constitutional rights, when social pressure demanded conformity over conscience, these relationships proved their worth not despite our differences, but because of them.

As we navigate these complex times, the path forward emerges with striking clarity. From Marcus Aurelius to Omar Little, the lesson remains the same: a man gotta have a code. The crisis of authenticity in our discourse, the chasm between proclaimed and lived values, and the failure of global virtue-signaling all point to the same solution: a return to genuine relationships and local engagement. Our strongest bonds – those real relationships that have weathered recent storms – remind us that true virtue manifests in daily choices and personal costs, not in digital badges or distant donations.

This Thanksgiving, I found myself grateful not for the easy comforts of conformity but for those in my life who demonstrate real virtue – the kind that comes with personal cost and requires genuine conviction. The answer lies not in grand gestures or viral posts, but in the quiet dignity of living according to our principles, engaging with our immediate communities, and maintaining the courage to think independently. As both the emperor-philosopher and the fictional street warrior understood, what matters isn’t the grandeur of our station but the integrity of our code.

Returning one final time to Meditations, I’m reminded of Aurelius’s timeless challenge: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/07/2024 – 23:20