In my last entry I said, with very little backing up, that Socialism is evil. I will now spend a few more words than last time and explain what I mean (and didn't explain earlier).
Socialism can be described in the following way:
[A] broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.The key concept behind this system is the abolition of private property (everybody owns nothing). In theory this applies only for property rights over material things. In practice, and inevitable so, the individual's self-ownership is also abolished ("society", "community", "the collective" and other such words always refer to many individuals, and each individual by himself is therefore not an entity in a system of Socialism).
Some people say that Socialism is a "beautiful" or "charming" thought. Individuals who hold this opinion say, or think, that individuals can become "equal" in some respect (for example monetary income) if "society" (for example the State) is placed higher than the individual. Everybody would then become less greedy, more equal and happier. Envy would become extinct. No-one would have lots of money and no-one would be desperately poor. Or so the Socialist says.
But Socialism is not a beautiful thought. Socialism is the system of ants - of a society where each individual is no more than a slave to "society", and whose talents, ambitions, preferences, interests, needs and cravings are no different from any other. Ants live for "the colony" - for the physical well-being of one queen - and each individual is therefore worthless as long as others can take its place. No ant suffers from envy because all are the same. No ant har more or less talents than the next. No ant gets business ideas and takes risks while implementing them. No ant discovers new and improved methods in hope of profits and wealth. No ant has any value by himself. All are equal. None is special.
How an individual, with a free mind and having a recognized self-ownership right in a free society, can call Socialism a "beautiful" thought is beyond me. The beauty of humanity is the diversity of its individuals, be it in talents, tastes or looks. A system based on enforced "equality", be it in monetary income or something else, does not see the individual, and denies him as a basic "unit" in society.
Socialists want to abolish the private property right (that can actually not be done, but at least they want to outlaw it). At the same time they often deny that they want to outlaw the individual's self-ownership right. This is the same as to say that a person can own a car, but the "society" decides where and when it should be driven. If the individual owns his own body, but cannot apply it the way he sees fit (for example, sell labor to a factory-owner or keep the apples he picks from the "public" trees), then the term self-ownership is worthless and meaningless.
Socialism is not a system suited for a society of individuals, and every attempt to impose Socialism is un-humane (if logic doesn't tell us that, then history sure as hell does). Socialism is State-enforced slavery, and evil.
2 comments:
"This is the same as to say that a person can own a car, but the "society" decides where and when it should be driven."
Doesn't every state in the world do that to some extent? I.e. you can drive on roads, but not in a public park, even though, in theory, that park belongs to you as a member of said public.
The State does decide on which of its property people can drive their cars, and which not, just like any other property owner. It says nothing about the licence to drive on private property of individuals/companies.
State-ownership is not "public" ownership in the sense that the public has any saying as to how the property is used. The State can simply do what it wants with its property, just like a private property owner does.
Post a Comment