Typically people on the political “right”, and of course, myself, will throw around terms like socialism, Marxism, communism, and so on, as a label for something that is problematic or directly detrimental to society, but what does socialism actually mean and why do we use the term so often?
The typical definition of the term is as follows:
“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
In theory, Socialism is just that, social. It is the collectivization of capital, usually via taxation, and then the redistribution of that capital through social/government programs. For instance, welfare is the redistribution of resources from the populace as a whole, to the people that the state deems is in need of those resources. Which is usually in the form of fiat currency.
In Australia, New Zealand, Canada and even to some degree in the US, socialist policies also aim at creating government dominated industries such as infrastructure. The taxation taken from the people is then redistributed into the infrastructure sector and used to create roads, power infrastructure, water infrastructure and so on.
It is essentially the redistribution of capital from all of the people as a whole to programs that the government decides necessitates that capital.
Socialism as a political and economic ideology is derived from Marxism, and is a transitional state between that of capitalism and communism.
“The goal of socialism is communism” – Vladimir Lenin
“(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.”
“Consequently, the Soviet Union never described itself as “communist”. It described itself as a socialist state working towards communism, as did all of its allies, and as did the non-aligned socialist states.” – Kristian Neimitz, Institute of economic affairs
However, the redistribution of wealth and productivity from that of the masses to those in need or to programs designed to benefit the nation, has its issues.
Those who pay taxes in socialist countries are forced to pay taxes. They don’t have a choice in the matter. And likewise, those taxes get redistributed by the state, to programs of the states choosing. Again, the people have no say in the matter where this capital goes or what it is used for.
The argument could be made that the people do choose where the money is spent based on who they vote into power and why they choose them because of their policies, but modern democracies do not actually function this way. When a politician is elected to office, typically their campaign promises do not match up to their actions. Likewise, the process in which they get elected is flawed, in that only a select few can run for office, there is only a small pool of political parties to choose from, their public policies are already set, and their public policies almost always do not align with their actions in office.
The public does not vote on bills in the parliament. They have to simply trust that their elected politician will do what they want. And many times, the bills themselves have nothing to do with the issues they are concerned about.
Socialism as compared between the typical definition and the actual reality, does not line up.
Another issue is that socialism loses immediately to a free market system by default, as taxation forcefully redistributed, must always go through administration, administration that has no competition and so is not compelled to increase efficiency to the standard that it otherwise could, and is then administered to the program that the government has deemed necessary with little to no risk involved. This is partially where the term “big government” comes from, as governmental administration is always encouraged to grow larger as it has no direct competition.
It is a system of harboring economic complacency.
In a free market, the building of what otherwise would be called social programs, would be done in a highly competitive atmosphere. With prices directly related to the more realistic, commonly perceived, value of the product. Administration would be cut to the bare essentials, not because it’s more efficient exactly, but because of the necessity of healthy competition.
“When government – in pursuit of good intentions – tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” – Milton Friedman
What lies at the heart of the problem of socialism is that it does not correlate to reality, socialism by its typical definition cannot be fully achieved. And if defined by the leaders of the USSR, its only goal is to bring about communism, which likewise has never actually been achieved.
Socialism will always lead to inefficiency and complacency. Because of this, people who can benefit off of this will be drawn to it. And so socialist leaders and politicians will be parasitical by nature in terms of their work and, most likely, in terms of what they wish to drain out of the system for their own personal gain.
Alex James.
Twitter/X post.