Libertas

Socialism and interventionism. Both have in common the goal of subordinating the individual unconditionally to the state. ~ Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) The Last Knight of Liberalism "If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."

In the second part of his lecture  on Socialism in Buenos Aires in 1958, Ludwig von Mises makes an obvious statement, but startling to most critics of capitalism, “In the market economy, everyone serves his fellow citizens by serving himself.”  The eighteenth liberals understood this ‘doctrine of the harmony of interests,” yet the socialists oppose it. Instead of harmony, the socialists see “irreconcilable conflict of interests” between the different classes and groups.

Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, claimed that there were irreconcilable differences between the classes. However, he could only show these differences from pre-capitalistic society. In those times, society was divided into hereditary classes, such as in India with their caste system. In status societies, you’re not born a Frenchman, but into the French aristocracy or the French bourgeoisie or the French peasantry. During most of the Middle Ages, most likely you’d be a serf.

Mises goes on to say that the worst forms of serfdom existed, even after the abolition of slavery, in the colonies of the British Empire. Children inherited their status from their parents and kept them for life. The elite had only privileges and the lower classes had only disadvantages. They could do nothing about it. In this case there was an “irreconcilable conflict of interests between the slave owners and the slaves.” The slave wanted freedom and the slave owner wanted to keep his “property.”

The people of Europe in those times did not feel connected in any special way to their fellow countrymen of other classes. Instead they were connected with members of their own class in other countries. Aristocrats of the various countries looked down at the “rabble” and to each other as equals. The aristocrats throughout Europe spoke French. The middle classes had their own language, and the lower classes used local dialects, often not even understood by other groups within their own country.

Dress was another distinguishing mark. The Aristocracy dressed one way, the bourgeoisie in another, and the peasants still another way. People knew immediately by language, accent, and dress to which class each other belonged.

This is not true in today. We cannot assume status or class merely by dress or language. Of course there are differences within capitalism. There are differences in wealth, but not the same or equivalent  differences of the old status societies. The Marxists, however, does not see a differences. He still sees the stratified society of the past when people were enslaved into the class they were born.

During the Middle Ages, a noble family could possess great wealth for centuries, whatever its qualities in talents, character or morals. Capitalism has changed this. Now there is social mobility. The Italian sociologist and economist Vilfredo Pareto, called it the “la circulation des élites.” So, while there are always people at the top who are wealthy and have power, they are not always the same people. The elites are changing.

This is true in a capitalistic society, but no so in pre-capitalistic societies. In the capitalistic system, you are free to change your status. “That is the difference between the status system and the capitalist system of economic freedom, in which everyone has only himself to blame if he does not reach the position he wants to reach,” says Mises.

Not all people, however, want to reach these positions. They have other interests and desires, but they too have the freedom to pursue those dreams that would not have existed in the feudal societies of the past. But the socialist system forbids, this basic freedom to choose one’s own career. In a socialistic system there is only one economic authority to choose – to plan – to control.

Benito Mussolini (1883 - 1945) “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.” “Everything for the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

When people talk of planning, they mean central planning, planning by the government. There are no other plans and no other planners. When the government plans, it removes – it forbids! – all choices and plans of individuals.

Under government planning, the individual becomes a soldier (is that the reason the military are being idolized once again?). Instead of a free agent who chooses where to live and work and what to do and when, the individual must follow orders. Collectivists, socialists, Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler all understood that military rule would be transferred to the whole production system. Marx wrote of “industrial armies,” and Lenin called for “the organization of everything – the postoffice, the factory, and other industries, according to the model of the army.”

Therefore, in a socialist society the rulers must be extremely talented, informed and wise. If they do not know something, it cannot and will not be taken into account. And that is the Achilles heal of their system. In a modern society, there is too much information. The complexity of the system makes it impossible to know and understand everything, to take into account everything, and then to make the right decision.

The government understands this, thus its continual quest for more intelligence, more spying, more control.

Since people are unequal in abilities, the gifted will see possibilities that others will not. Many will dismiss new ideas, but within a capitalistic society, an idea can bloom into reality with the help of other like minded people. But in a Socialist or Marxist system, the leadership must be convinced before any attempt to develop an idea can proceed. The idea must first gain access to the leadership, and then the leadership must have the foresight and wisdom to okay the project. If not, nothing happens. Innovation is stifled by the system.

Although governments move towards interventionist principles, the systems they favor are doomed to fail.

Recommended:

Economic Policy by Ludwig von Mises

The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by Ludwig von Mises

Socialism by Ludwig von Mises