Can Socialism Die?

There's a great article at Tech Central Station on why socialism won't die, despite failure after failure. The article was spurred by yet another socialist (Evo Morales in Bolivia) nationalizing the energy companies.

One of the things I liked about the article was that it did a better than average job of explaining Marxism. One of the things few people realize was that Marx would not have been happy about socialist revolutions that have taken place in the world. Marx believed that socialism would naturally occur at a time when capitalism had gone so far and become so efficient that all of the capital would be in very few hands (the capitalists), because they wouldn't even need workers (or would need very few) anymore. Basically, Marx thought natural evolution of economics would make socialism inevitable because the masses would be extremely poor and unemployed (for the most part) and the capitalists would be rich because they owned the means of production. Unfortunately for the capitalists, the people being poor would hold the unpleasant result of no one being able to afford to buy their wares anymore. Thus, a revolution where all that is needed is basically automatically produced and shared equally among the masses.

Marx's theories went wrong in many places--he obviously missed the point that in a capitalist society there are always new inventions and infinite varieties of products to be created, built and sold which will always require workers at every level, so he saw a finite number of human needs being fulfilled by capitalists who would end up automating the workers out of existance--but Marx wasn't one who believed capitalism was bad, he just believed it was a step... and actually a very efficient and necessary step that was only "bad" when it had gone past a certain point.

Viewing Marx's socialism from where it actually stood, no country would be "ready" for the socialist revolution. Not even the U.S. because capitalism has not yet produced a situation of high automation and comensurate high unemployment. The places that have tried socialism have all been in places that are the least likely to produce the socialist utopia, because they've been in places that were already poor and unproductive. Their backwardness is proven by the fact that even when the Soviet Union broke up, they haven't yet been able to get their productivity together enough to do a decent job of being capitalists. Socialism in an unproductive society is a recipe for disaster. Actually, it's a recipe for disaster anywhere because human beings are simply not motivated to be productive, let alone creative, when there is no reward for it. And, to pass out the "spoils" (or to loot, as Ayn Rand would rightfully call it) of those who ARE productive to give them to those who are not productive
and creative eventually destroys not only the motivation of the productive and creative, but also their ability to be productive and creative. Plus, successful economies operate in chaos. Needs are created, then ways to fulfill them are created. It's not planned, it just happens in the most efficient way possible. And that includes the creation of infrastructure to support the businesses.

Governments can not "plan" an economy. Just to take one example: where would the computer be if the government was left to plan exactly how it should evolve? In the creativity of the chaos, programs were created, the Internet and all of it's uses were created including the recent advent of the blogosphere, Google was created, speed was increased as a result of the programs that people simply HAD to have, the iPod was created and changed the way music was listened to and delivered, and now there are Podcasts... None of that could be "planned". Heck, I love Apple, but I couldn't figure out when the iPod came out why the hell anyone would want one. Now I LOVE mine and my lifestyle would feel greatly diminished if I didn't have it.

In the article, the question is why socialism keeps hanging on despite its record of abject failure every time it's tried. In the article, he sites that socialism is like religion. Plus, most "believers" don't even know their Marx, so they're utopians, rather than Marxists who would understand that you don't take a bunch of starving peasants and suddenly make them "comrades" and solve all of their problems. You merely create more problems trying to impose the utopia upon them, because it's a building with no foundation.

I would assert that another reason that socialism won't die is the human being's enormous capacity for rationalization, denial, and self-deception. It is just far easier to blame someone else for your problems (the capitalist who is "looting" the resources and "exploiting" the workers), and to rationalize and deny your own involvement in your own life situation than to realize that your life situation is due for the most part to your own decisions... did you get an education, or create something, or fight against a corrupt government that doesn't give you those opportunities? The wealthy, "limosine" socialist is the most interesting case. I have no idea what they're thinking, other than some strange belief that they somehow don't deserve what they have. What I want to know is how many socialist leaning Hollywood types negotiate their salary for a movie as high as possible and then distribute it equally among everyone who worked on the film, so that they make not a dime more than the kid who carries the script for the director.

So, as long as someone can rationalize and deny, as long as they can blame someone else, and can hope that someone or something else can give them what they've rationalized they deserve for nothing, socialism will not die. It IS a religion, with all of the least useful aspects of faith, and none of the best aspects of faith. At least most rational religious people I know assume that they have God's support, but if something is failing over and over, they can step back and say, "This isn't working, so maybe this isn't what I should be doing." Socialists don't let that much reality and rationality enter their thinking.