The Inherent Evils of Socialism
I must have missed a memo along the way, but apparently socialism is inherently evil.
I guess it depends on what your definition of socialism is. Maybe if your definition of socialism is something like:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I could see how a belief of socialism as being inherently evil could be formed if this were the definition. However, this is not the definition of socialism, this is the definition of terrorism, whereas modern socialism, or the advocating of more equality for the good of all people, seems quite different. I have a difficult time understanding how something like terrorism and something like socialism could both be grouped into the category of inherently evil.
Traditionally, Christians had a class of things they considered inherently evil, the "Seven Deadly Sins," consisting of extravagance/lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Do these "sins" fall in line with socialist values? Are these socialist goals? Or, do these seem more inline with Capitalist realities? Based on these "sins," which ideology is really more inherently evil?
Maybe socialism is inherently evil. If trying to obtain equality is inherently evil, I guess the real problem then lies in the fact that, given the opportunity, the majority of people will make sacrafices in order to achieve equality. A recent University of California - San Diego study looked at past research which
Demonstrated that people are willing to incur costs to punish and reward others, especially in scenarios where every player's contribution to a common pool results in greater benefits for all. But in those cases it is hard to tell whether the actions are motivated by egalitarian preferences for similar income levels or a desire to enforce norms and encourage group cooperation.
So, to determine whether peopel were motivated by egalitarian preferences, the scientists removed self-interest and group cooperation as factors and found that
Material egalitarianism is more than just a long-held ideal of utopian philosophers and political theorists... (because) people still, at a cost to themselves, gave money to the poorest players and took it away from the richest... Subjects who had received more than the group average were penalized most frequently and most heavily, at a rate of about three-quarters of a unit for each unit above the average. In contrast, those that started out with considerably less than the others got sizeable gifts, at rate of about eight-tenths of a unit for each unit below the average. The pattern of behaviors had the effect of equalizing income. - Science Daily
If this is the case, then I gues we all must be inherently evil socialists.
Share on Facebook
1 comments:
You're equating socialism to charity. They do not compare.
Socialism is more properly compared to Liberty (aka traditional Liberalism). Here's how.
In an old-fashioned Liberal society, there is equality of opportunity. The government does not stand in anyone's way. It provides everyone with the same rules and structures and allows those with the greatest drive to take big risks, make wonderful things happen that benefit everyone, and enjoy the prosperity that accumulates to them by reason of their effort and vision. Charity is encouraged in a liberal society.
In a Socialist society, there is equality of results. The government takes from some and gives to others, theoretically taking from those with more wealth and giving to those with less. The government must be pure of intent and totally good for this to work, because the government is basically chartered to take anything from anyone for any reason it sees fit. If ambitious people rise to power in the Socialist government then they skim off more and more of the resources that are seized and give less and less resources to the beneficiaries of the wealth transfer. If the situation gets bad enough, socialism becomes a government of thieves, and Charity (of which you approve) is made impossible because nobody has enough spare wealth to give any away, plus it is discouraged because it is a (bad) private alternative to (good) government acts. Furthermore, socialism by its dominant class-warfare metaphor groups society into class-groups instead of individuals. These class-groups lobby in favor of themselves and against other class-groups, resulting in a society of many tribes all against each other and for themselves, even at the expense of the overall society.
In any case, the difference between old-fashioned Liberalism and Socialism is the difference between a government that keeps its hands out of your pocket (for the most part) and one that is able to take whatever it wants from you at any time. It is no surprise that many would see that as a conflict between benign rule and theft. I certainly do.
Post a Comment