Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System?

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html

The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two-hundred years is a matter of historical record. But very few people are willing to defend capitalism as morally uplifting.

It is fashionable among college professors, journalists, and politicians these days to sneer at the free-enterprise system. They tell us that capitalism is base, callous, exploitative, dehumanizing, alienating, and ultimately enslaving.

The intellectuals’ mantra runs something like this: In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world. Capitalism, by contrast, is a morally bankrupt system despite the extraordinary prosperity it has created. In other words, capitalism at best, can only be defended on pragmatic grounds. We tolerate it because it works.

Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.

The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another’s wealth but also the desire to see another’s wealth lowered to the level of one’s own. Socialism’s teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini. The highest principle of Nazism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: "Common good comes before private good." Fascism, said Mussolini, is "a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interests…realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies."

Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class.

Despite the intellectuals’ psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system.

This is one of the clearest, simplest, and most thorough essays on the difference between Capitalism and Socialism I have ever read. It also is an excellent defense of the morality of Capitalism - a defense that few intellectuals have ever proposed (other than Ayn Rand).

Introduction to Radical Capitalism - Part II

http://zambia.co.zm/articles/radical_capitalism2.html

You suggest that a better method is to simply be “pragmatic”. By this, I believe you mean that we should simply look at what works (or has worked) in practice, for our economic ends, and to follow that path. But pragmatism is a very poor way of guidance in life. Why? Let’s say we discover that corruption is actually good for the economy. Should we encourage corruption in the nation so that we could have economic growth? Your answer, I am sure is no. But why not? From pragmatism, it is not possible for you to simply reject corruption as a way to economic growth if statistics show that it is good for the economy.

The same can be said about slavery. One can possibly argue that some nations have had economic success as a result of using forced free labour (slavery). If pragmatism had had its way in this debate on slavery many years ago, the West would still be practicing it. Indeed there were pragmatists who saw nothing wrong with slavery since the slaves were foreigners and the human trade was helping their economy. But it was banned because a rational moral argument triumphed over mere pragmatism, as it always should. My argument against slavery is simply that you do not have the right to own or control someone else’s property – their mind and their body – and this is the same argument I use for capitalism. Pragmatism does not have a similar moral foundation to be a useful guide.

Bwana says that I should show how capitalism achieves the things that socialism wants to achieve, but in a better way, and so on. But why should I do that? Why should anyone, for example, spend time trying to show why freedom is better than dictatorship, or than slavery? That would be the pragmatic paradigm route, which we have already shown to be morally invalid. Since no one really needs to be convinced that freedom is better than slavery, or that theft is wrong, my responsibility is only to show how socialism is essentially equal to these vices (slavery or theft) – which infringe on property rights - and someone will easily make up their mind after they see this. If this is shown, there is no need to investigate whether it even has any advantages. The discussion simply closes there. Granted, some economists have shown that socialism is actually even counter-productive, but that’s just a wonderful coincidence of the nature of our benevolent universe or our good Lord – the important fact is that it’s immoral, just as slavery is immoral. Corruption has also been allegedly shown to be counter-productive from empirical evidence, but the issue still is that it is immoral, even if it was not shown to be counter-productive, and therefore it is not a valid option for a rational person or society to even investigate.

In Part II of his essays on Radical Capitalism, Chanda Chisala answers his reader's critical comments, particularly an argument for a more pragmatic approach to deciding their society's government. I am impressed with his clear, logical responses. These essays are a very good introduction to what Capitalism entails for those who are unclear or misguided on the subject.

Introduction to Radical Capitalism - Part I

http://zambia.co.zm/articles/radical_capitalism1.html

One of the most common comments one hears whenever there is a discussion on how Africa can solve its problems is this: “we have tried socialism and we have tried capitalism; neither of them have worked. It is time for us to try out a new system of economics, something invented by ourselves.”

This statement always sounds very attractive to many unsuspecting intellectuals and yet it is quite a meaningless statement. To break it down to essentials, what it actually means is this: “we have tried taking the rights of individuals to own their property from them, and we have tried letting individuals keep their rights of owning their property; neither has worked. It is time for us to try out a new system, something invented by ourselves.”

Unfortunately, there is no “third way”. This is a question of very basic logic. Either you allow a person to be an owner of his property or you forcefully assume ownership and control of his property (through government). The former is the essence of capitalism and the latter is the essence of socialism, whether you like those two terms or not.

This is part of an excellent series of essays on Radical Capitalism, written by an editor in Zambia. I stumbled upon these writings by accident, and quickly realized they were very articulate arguments in favor of capitalism. I was further surprised to find out that they were written in the context of a public debate happening right now in Zambia concerning the organization of their society and government! It seems they are in the process of creating a new Constitution, and this writer is advocating the adoption of capitalism as the moral basis of government for Zambia.

The Romantic Illusion of Universal Health Care

I found all these short essays on CapMag on the same day - so it seemed appropriate to bundle them together and share them here to counter the ignorance I hear every day about Universal Health Care. It's gotten to where the phrase is used as a litmus test - you're either for it or against it (like the abortion issue). Even more perversely, the public consensus has judged that UHC is inherently good (who could possibly be against caring for people?), it is inevitable (everyone else is doing it!), and it is only being held up by selfish, heartless, greedy people (if you're not in favor of the Patriot Act, you must be a traitor!).

Universal Health Care Freedom on the Fourth of July
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4983

The talk about a "right" to health care really means that no one should have the right to any health care at all except through the government. As we celebrate the Fourth of July this year we must remember that our right to manage our own health care as we see fit is as vital to our liberty as freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

Why Health Insurance Should Not Be Universal
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4984

Power-hungry politicians feed off the irrationality of the citizenry. If the citizenry were more rational, there would be no place in the political system for politicians who value power over freedom and justice. Today's problems with medical care are the fault of the people who want the results of capitalism while instructing their leaders to install more socialism.

All Power to the Post Office
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4981

During a recent interview, a talk radio host told me that all private health insurance should be eliminated in order to give us all a reason to work together to make sure the government runs a good health care system.
A better analogy would be that conditions in our prisons might be expected to improve if we were all required to live in them. Socialists and some Liberals would find this level of government-enforced uniformity to be a noble sacrifice to which all citizens must submit. Many Conservatives would reluctantly agree—but suggest a voucher system that would allow us each to select the prison cell of our choice.

Health Care's A Mess--So What's the Solution?
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4980

It's better to consider the possibility that the market didn't fail us in medical care...but it was never allowed to function. If you don't want more of the same, which universal government coverage and control will provide, then consider something radically different: freedom in health care.

Time for Another Revolution

http://www.mises.org/story/2633

In 1913 the relationship between the State and Society was reversed. Areas which had heretofore been considered within the private domain, sacred ground so to speak, were now invaded by the arrogant and enriched State, and within thirty years the individual was squeezed into a corner so small that even his soul lacked elbow room. His case was far worse than it was in 1776; in exchange for an income tax King George III would have conceded every point made against him by the colonists, and might even have done penance for past sins. But, such was the character of these Americans that they challenged him to battle because he presumed to impose a miserable tax on tea. What they won at Yorktown was lost by their offspring one hundred and thirty-two years later.

Were the disposition of the current crop of Americans comparable to that of their forbears, a new revolution, to regain the profit of the first one, would be in order. There is far more justification for it now than there was in 1776. But, people do not do what reason dictates; they do what their disposition impels them to do. And the American disposition of the 1950s is flaccidly placid, obsequious and completely without a sense of freedom; it has been molded into that condition by the proceeds of the Sixteenth Amendment. We are Americans geographically, not in the tradition. In the circumstances, a return to the Constitutional immunities must wait for a miracle.

An excellent essay on the need for a revolution - as great a need as existed at the birth of our nation. Too many people are ignorant of the Constitution - its purpose, its principles, and even its weaknesses and why they exist. It all sounds too anachronistic to be taken seriously today. Defenders of the Constitution are seen as blind nostalgic cultists, out of touch with modernity. That's easy to believe when you don't understand the philosophical and moral challenges of our day, let alone the historical context (and the amazing similarities).

Frank outlines the foundations of the Constitution, the social struggle, the loss of liberty, and the slow erosion of protections against the powers of the State. The entire book can be downloaded for free here.

The Myth of the Rational Voter

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9340166

Instead, he identifies four biases that prompt voters systematically to demand policies that make them worse off. First, people do not understand how the pursuit of private profits often yields public benefits: they have an anti-market bias. Second, they underestimate the benefits of interactions with foreigners: they have an anti-foreign bias. Third, they equate prosperity with employment rather than production: Mr Caplan calls this the “make-work bias”. Finally, they tend to think economic conditions are worse than they are, a bias towards pessimism.

The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps apocryphal, of an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don't they use a mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If it's jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.” For an individual, the make-work bias makes some sense. He prospers if he has a job, and may lose his health insurance if he is laid off. For the nation as a whole, however, what matters is not whether people have jobs, but how they do them. The more people produce, the greater the general prosperity.

A good essay exposing the myth that democracy always results in the best choice for all involved (wisdom of crowds, etc.) He outlines four factors that cause voters to act irrationally. In a democracy, he claims, rational politicians give the voters what they (irrationally) want.

Live and Let Live

http://jewishworldreview.com/0707/stossel070507.php3

That same week I happened to interview filmmaker Michael Moore for "20/20." Moore wants government to monopolize health care. His new film, "Sicko," argues that Canada and France approach paradise because their governments provide health care and more. This brought him standing ovations in Cannes.

"But government is force," I said to him. He was incredulous.
Michael Moore: Why do you see it as force?
Me: Because government takes money with force from people and gives it to others.
Moore: No, it doesn't, actually. The government is of, by, and for the people. The people elect the government, and the people determine whether or not they'll allow the government to collect taxes from them.

Is it really necessary to explain that government is force? When the Salvation Army asks you for a donation, you are free to say no, and you suffer no consequences. When the U.S. government demands a tax return and a check on April 15, you can't say no and go about your business. You comply or face fines or imprisonment. Yes, you get to vote for candidates periodically. But having an infinitesimal say in who will coerce you doesn't change that fact that they are using force.

John Stossel is very good at identifying the principles that most people miss when discussing the latest hot-button issues. The universal health care debate is full of misdirection and illusion, and a lot of passionate people championing popular causes while ignoring the foundation of their philosophy. Michael Moore's total absence of awareness about the true nature of any collectivist policy leaves me dumbfounded (yet not totally suprised). When people like him are making sweeping statements in the media that ignore principles, I get worried - it means the public debate is fueled by ignorance.

"Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just."

-- Ezra Taft Benson
The Proper Role of Government