Socialism - An Opinion

This be a thematic sequel to my earlier post which obviously has me put my thinking cap on.

-=-=-=-

Socialism - An Opinion

Before we get to an actual opinion here, let's start with first principles as always - by defining Socialism, and looking at its history. You might want to skip this part if you feel it don't need to to revise what you already know.

Socialism - Definition and the Marxist/ Soviet Heritage

Socialism is a vision for a collectivist utopia, where the means of production and political power is transferred to "the people". In particular it refers to empowering the common man or the worker, through either revolution or social evolution, and therefore directing the energies of the "state" toward the achievement of the "greater good"...

Marxism took it a little bit further - Marx believed that a socialist revolution was inevitable - a historical imperative - the end product of millennia of social dynamics. Simplistically speaking, he separated society into the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeoisie (the people who own the means of production). His idea was that the transfer of power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat was inevitable, and once this happened (via social revolution) a classless society would be formed where power was in the hands of the people. Here he dropped the ball, because he assumed the "people" would organize themselves and form a well meaning, sympathetic government that would rule wisely.

After the October Revolution in Russia at the end of World War 1, the Bolsheviks who gradually assumed power knew this problem. But the charisma of Vladimir Lenin was already birthing what eventually came to be called Marxist-Leninism or simply Leninism.

Leninism recognized two simple failures of Marxism - 1. The inevitable social evolution had not brought about the supremacy of the proletariat in the west, and 2. Marx had not recommended how to actually form a communist government/ economy.

Lenin answered this eloquently. 1a. Social evolution is not inevitable in the west, because the Imperialists (the arch-capitalists) had made the proletariat in their own nations happy by sucking the blood of developing nations. (This concept is still at the heart of much of the opposition to things such as the IMF and WTO.)

1b. Therefore, revolution was the only way to bring about the "inevitable" - first take developing nations (like Russia) and that would automatically inspire the developed nations (Lenin hoped, Germany) to follow suit. Lenin knew Socialism wouldn't work if it was limited to one country alone, so he encouraged what eventually became the Soviet Bloc or the Comintern to work toward Worldwide Revolution. Which birthed the Cold War.

Now, in answer to the deficiency regarding the lack of clear guidance on the how of politics and economics, Lenin came up with what he called "War Communism". This idea failed - production across the board went down in industries to 67% of what it used to be. In fact, the copper industry was producing 2% of what it used to before the war! So the Leninists came up with the concept of "Planned Economy" under his New Economic Pplicy (NEP).

War Communism included:

Government control of all large factories. (the roots of India's public sector)
Government planning for all production.
Strict discipline for workers - workers could be shot for shirking work.
Obligatory labor duty for the bourgeoisie.
Prodrazvyorstka - Government requisition of agricultural surpluses from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population. (the basis for India's PDS)
Rationing of food and all other commodities.
Private enterprise made illegal.
Government control of all railroads. (again, what gave rise to the idea of Indian Railways)

The NEP was slightly more pragmatic. Free enterprise was allowed so long as it wasn't too big (especially in farming, where collective farms were given some measure of autonomy). Public sector companies were similarly made more autonomous. It worked too, because Russia averted ruin for another few years.

After Lenin's death, Stalin dissolved the NEP because of a grain crisis - farmers were selling less to the government and more to free agents that bought grain at double the price under the NEP! So Stalin proceeded to reinstall a fully "centralized economy". In theory this sounded fantastic - the government could control everything - labor, food, transport, commodities and industry - toward the "greater good". But of course, that was not to be.

One of the requirements of Communism was that religion be illegal. The people did not like that. Another was that everyone should be the same - uniformism. The problem was, everyone is not the same! Local cultures, customs and art were brutally crushed. Since everyone was a member of "The Party" kids were encouraged to rat on their parents for any anti-communist activities (such as using silver cutlery when the government had decreed the use of tin). The parents, of course, were shipped to labor camps or gulags for this.

Poles, Germans, Belorussians, Afghans and other ethnic groups were to feel the bite of the Russian attempt to spread World Revolution. The age of the secret police reigned supreme in Europe. The Cheka, then the NKVD, then the KGB encouraged coups, terrorist outfits, and "revolutions" everywhere, while simultaneously repressing people within the Soviet Union.

What had been formulated as the people's government had quickly become the Communist dictatorship under Stalin, at war with the Imperialist west. The arms race that followed brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, and ended up breaking Russia's economic back.

In 1987, recognizing the risk of narrowly averted famine, and the overall failure of Central Planning, Gorbachev tried to bring in perestroika (literally, "restructuring") of the economy. For political reasons, however, he could not make the restructure radical enough to save things. In spite of his attempt at the attitude of glasnost (literally, "openness", "publicity") he could not control proceedings. By 1990 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Economy was a ruin. In 1991, the Soviet was dissolved.

And so ended the most large scale socialist experiment in the history of man. From revolution to ruin, from elation to repression, from shambles to despair. And it was the common man - the farmer - that suffered.

-=-=-=-

Dissenting views of Socialism

There were of course, other kinds of socialism. Yugoslavia under Tito tried one kind - we all know how it fared. Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro saw some of the worst slaughter and ethnic cleansing in Europe under Slobodan Milesovich, since the holocaust.

China with its "Maoism" went through almost all the phases of Russia's history - but they were able to use their own brand of perestroika to get away with it. Today, China is perhaps more capitalist than the best of them. And more successful, because it has the biggest source of exploitable citizens to use as sheep in its slaughterhouses! Besides, they are still communist in everything but economics, so the proletariat that "rules them" does not have a democratic voice. No free media, (to cover celebrity weddings, or national issues), no wonderfully self sufficient villages (suicide rates and attempts to illegally immigrate out of China are at an all time high)

Oppress away, in the name of the greater good! Bah!

Why Socialism Failed - My opinion

I'm going to make this very very brief and just a collection of bullet points in the interest of brevity.

1. The proletariat cannot rule without structure, and tends to swiftly disintegrate into a gang of hoodlums under a dictator. Sometimes I wonder if the natural tendency of men to form hierarchical tribes based on perceptions of prowess has anything to do with it. Its a very negative approach to sociology, but seemingly true. Unless there is a form or structure that enforces democracy, people tend to become dictators. And socialism recommends dictatorship anyway - the dictatorship of the government (well, an oligarchy to be accurate). Dictatorhips - any dictatorships - fail unless the people are kept tightly under a thumb.

2. Any attempt to plan or centrally control an economy is doomed to failure. Production, ideation and economies thrive in a chaotic environment. Yes, there are many losers in the chaos of the economy, but that is simply unavoidable. Central planning is nothing but an exercise in ego. I will talk about this in my post on globalization in much detail, for now, suffice it to say that instead of dampening chaos, the role of government should be to channel it!

3. Individual freedoms, fundamental rights and the choice for religious belief are the only things that ensure a politically "happy" citizenry. Similarly, a laissez-faire, minimal intervention economy is what makes them economically happy, since there is no state sponsored preferred economic minority, and in the chaotic reality that ensues, almost everyone has an equal chance, if they can but grab it.

4. And finally, socialism is wrong because the supremacy of the working class is never going to happen. The truth is, we are marching into a new hierarchy. The mind rules supreme - the thinkers, the scientists, the economists and ideators are today's ruling class. The truth is, there will always be subservient people as cogs in any socio-economic machine of a nation. The truth is, "the greater good" is an evil mirage. Trying to attain it will lead you, well, to the dark side, where you will find yourself becoming what you had started out fighting.

Anyway... that's enough. Read between the lines in what I've written. Do your own damn research on socialism (I relied heavily on Wikipedia to refresh my memory) and make up your own damn mind.

Oh... and read my post on globalization (coming soon), and comment on this one.