Even if you’re willing to ignore the economic costs, socialism brings a political cost most people — particularly in America — would find unacceptable. Socialism eventually leads to the loss of liberty and tyranny.
In previous posts, I’ve explained the impracticality of socialism as an economic system. We cannot deliver full value to workers when we don’t know the price of the final products, and we can’t separate the contribution of labor versus the contribution of capital. Although I want to focus primarily on economics in this blog, socialism causes a political price that I don’t think most people would be willing to pay.
Having workers own the means of production sounds like a wonderful program. But, have you ever experienced large groups making decisions? When groups get together and try to make decisions in unison, they tend to be impractical and ineffective. The larger the group, the worse the results achieved. So, imagine a nationwide economy depending on all the owners of production making decisions in unison.
Even ardent socialists agree with this picture. They know that having all the members of society deciding together how resources get distributed simply would not work. Socialism, therefore, requires central planning. When initially presented the idea of “central planning” seems quite reasonable and harmless. Why not let the representatives of the workers decide how does distribute resources and work?
Was it Lord Acton who pointed out the problem of corruption that arises from power? Whether the attribution is correct, the observation certainly is. Central planners would discover the benefit of having the power given to them, and they would do their best to increase that power. The end result would be something we’ve seen in most, if not all, socialist countries: absolute tyranny.
But couldn’t this be avoided with a democratic form of government and a socialist economy?
Democracy, as pointed out by Alexis de Tocqueville and Hans Herman Hoppe, has its own set of problems. But, even in the idealized form of democracy, the socialism part of Democratic Socialism would drag the system down.
In the economic system known as socialism the countervailing power of open markets does not exist. Elected officials would have far more power than they would under a democratic government and a market economic system. Since those who have power tend to strive for more, the system would ultimately break down, and some form of tyranny would arise. Look, for example, at the “democratically” elected president of Venezuela. Not working too well.
Socialism, even under a democratically elected form of government, would eventually lead to lost liberty.
Regardless of the form of government socialism will always lead to a loss of liberty. In the abstract, that may not seem too bad. Most people would give up a certain amount of liberty in exchange for a bit more certainty on the economic front. Who wouldn’t prefer to have education, healthcare, retirement, and other essential economic concerns guaranteed by someone else?
At a more personal level, however, lost liberty would mean, particularly for Americans, the loss of a reasonable lifestyle. How would you like to have someone else to decide what you do for work, where you go to school, what you eat, whether you eat, where you live, who you associate with, and anything else that you control through your own free choice?
Free stuff comes at an extremely high price.
Socialism represents such an outrageously impractical economic system it seems incredible that anyone would suggest it in the first place. But, even in an idealized form, socialism comes at a price that includes a lot more than the loss of economic well-being.
Under any political system, socialism robs you of free choice and your very humanity.
Serious consideration of socialism represents a far greater threat to humanity than climate change, volcanoes, asteroids, or any other natural disaster. For the sake of your economic well being and your personal liberty, reject the concept now.