![]()
1
FREEDOM OR SOCIALISM?
Why you can't have both, and
what drives the uninformed attraction to socialism
The problem with socialism
is that eventually you run out
of other people's money.
- Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of England
The fundamental purpose of this book is to look seriously at whether we should base our future on the ideas of freedom or socialism—what works and what does not work for human progress and improvement of the human condition.
We started with the historical context; what life has been like through most of history. In 1651 Thomas Hobbes described it as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutal and short.” Reality says that much of history has been replete with conquests, destruction, oppression, brutality and misery. Having defenses and deterring adversaries has been essential. The cost of losing in battles has frequently meant death, loss of family, subservience, slavery and serfdom.
The long evolution of civilization has included better ways, better ideas, better “operating systems” for people getting along and working constructively in a world of seemingly limited resources and opportunities. Assuring civil behavior hasn't been easy. Tribes, city states, nations, even families have been known to fight each other. Our founders were driven by the quest for the best ways of governance to assure civil adjustments of differences, minimize violence, and to make a republic last. They had felt the injustices of rule from afar by the sometimes arbitrary and greedy whims of a powerful monarch. In their decision for revolution they risked everything—their homes, their assets, their sacred honor and their lives.
Because of their foresight, courage and sacrifice, we can now look forward to a world of unlimited knowledge, resources and increased human productivity. Their revolutionary ideas laid the foundation for improvement of the human condition everywhere. Herman Kahn envisioned that this kind of progress would make the great four-hundred-year transition happen.
Others in search of better ways have been seduced by the utopian ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They were focused on the restraint of free market capitalism and the distribution of wealth rather than its creation. Inevitably, taking away the fruits of one's labor and giving it to others requires force—political, economic and putative. It means government by coercion rather than consent. It means control by political elites rather than individual responsibility and autonomy. It comes at a cost to our freedom, progress, and prosperity.
A time-honored way to get political support is by promising people free stuff. The problem is, free stuff must first be produced by someone before it can be given to someone else. Robbing Peter to pay Paul can work politically. It usually assures the political support and subservience of Paul. That is what makes socialism function. It is the foundation of socialism's “operating system.”
To understand the high stakes of selecting socialistic ideas, we must begin by examining the notion that we can have it both ways.
We must fully realize that inherent in a choice of socialism as a system of government, is yet another choice. It is one in which we sacrifice our freedoms.
My experience in a communist Cuban prison led me to value freedom more than ever before. In the more than fifty years since I was freed, I have never forgotten what it felt like to lose my freedom. It was the most demeaning, demoralizing, frightening, suffocating experience of my life—it haunts me to this day. While I regained my freedom, the disaster for the Cuban people had only just begun. They stand as a perfect example of the incompatibility of socialism and liberty.
Many people, particularly those in the West, take their freedom for granted because they have never lost it. They wake up in a home or apartment. They have electricity, food, shelter, heat, potable running water and sanitation facilities. They can buy a car or a cell phone. They can shop freely, surrounded by abundance, without a second thought. They go about their lives without fear of arbitrary arrest.
At no time does it occur to them to think that the way they are living could be yanked out from under them without recourse… as it was for Domingo and his family.
These ‘ordinary’ aspects of life that we in the West take for granted share a unique quality: they can only be reliably enjoyed in a free society. The homes, the infrastructure that makes life comfortable and efficient, the cars, the movies, the meals—they are a product of a system that allows and rewards free speech, free enterprise, and free ideas. If you look to the failed socialist nations that litter history, few if any provided real hope for their people. Although nearly all came to power based on utopian slogans, they failed to provide a sustainable, prosperous way of life for their citizens.
This leads us to a paradox. Despite the dismal track record of socialist societies—one that we'll explore more deeply in coming chapters—there still exists an outspoken cohort that cries out for a further shift to socialist policies. For all the evidence that socialism is a failed system of government, there is a growing movement toward it.
Our journey begins with understanding why.
I believe that many people who say they support socialism do so because a) they lack real insight into socialist principles and actual socialist track records, and; b) because they have been convinced by outside sources that such principles are a benign way to provide “compassionate” government services that they believe will help society. As a result, they've fallen for the “have it both ways” trap, with little understanding of socialism or its consequences.
In the following pages, we'll look at what has created this misunderstanding, and work to clarify the real modus operandi of socialism, and the inevitable result of its application.
Millennials and the “More Generous Safety Net”
In October 2014, an interviewer questioned various attendees of a Congressional Caucus Conference and asked them to define socialism. No one interviewed was able to give a concise definition, and some seemed quite confused by the question. But almost without exception, the responders felt that a socialist is “someone who helps other people.”1
For many, socialism seems a romantic concept. And if you only read the sales pitch, it sounds pretty good: no more class system, equality for all. The problem is that it rarely, if ever, works out that way. The only equality socialism truly offers is equality in poverty. The lofty claims of charismatic politicians are simply sugar-coated words that have rarely produced permanent positive results anywhere in the world.
According to Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, millennials, in particular, believe socialism is a “more generous social safety net.”2 They think of it as a harmless way to help the poor and downtrodden, create racial equality, and spread fairness. In their belief that socialism can accomplish these lofty ideals, they attend (sometimes violent) protests, give fiery speeches at events, and get themselves photographed with all the right people, hoping to further their cause.
What they fail to see is the dark side of its pursuit—the inevitable loss of freedom that attends it, and the loss of prosperity that follows.
Millennials often declare themselves against capitalism. As Noonan points out, they have had a very different experience with capitalism than their parents and grandparents. Millennials have not seen the building of a nation through free enterprise, based on a governmental structure erected by our founders and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They did not experience the growth of wealth for all Americans that accelerated after the Second World War. They have not followed the progress of nations with an entrepreneurial spirit, whose governments allowed free-market capitalism to flourish, to the benefit of all.
Rather, they believe it was free market capitalism that “drove us into a ditch” in the 2008 U.S. recession. Their choice would have been “progressive” policies of excessive regulation and high taxes. The recession “shattered their faith in the system: its fairness, usefulness and efficacy.”3
Millennials, it seems, are looking for something “new,” something they believe will be more “fair.” And many of them believe socialism would do the trick.
Why do they believe that?
It isn't because of wonderful socialist societies around the world; these are mostly imaginary.4
It isn't because they have studied economics and find that socialist principles help people; in the long run, they don't.
It i...
