It is easy to confuse the three -isms of tyrannical social order - communism, socialism, and fascism. In practice, all three have led to totalitarian regimes, rampant poverty, and an evisceration of individual liberty. However, the strict definition of universal communism differs greatly from what has been termed communism by the general public and lazy academics. Much of the confusion is due to nations such as the Soviet Union and China, who identified themselves as communist, yet their societies are much different from the communist system that Marx defined.
The very strict definition of communism is a social order in which all property is owned communally, not via government [1]. For this reason, Karl Marx envisioned governments slowly disappearing under the natural societal evolution from capitalism to communism. This strict definition means that if there are 1 million people in a given communist society, then every individual shares a 1/1,000,000 ownership over every other person and every unit of property. Nobody owns property outright and nobody even owns their own body.
Of course communism literally does not permit the existence of man as everyone would immediately die out under this order - an individual would have to get 1,000,000 permissions to breathe and eat. Thus, the theoretical communist society has never been fully attempted as it is technically impossible. Contrary to popular belief, the Russian system was just plain semi-socialist with a totalitarian government leading the way for purposes of planning. They were not even completely socialist since they used outside markets and prices as a means to guide planning. In fact, when a more strictly socialist society was attempted by Lenin immediately following the Bolshevik revolution, Russia quickly devolved into a land of roaming, nomadic tribes and so the system was abandoned for something more compromising.
Notice that communism, in the strict sense, actually implies an absence of government. This is certainly not true for socialism and fascism, which imply authoritarian governments - there is a need for planners to organize economic activity. Socialism, again in the strict sense of the word, is an economic and political social order where all industry is owned by government. There are no markets, prices, or private property under pure socialism. Likewise, fascism can be considered to be a form of socialism with more intolerant, nationalistic, and militaristic political tendencies. Although these systems of government seem much more feasible, pure socialism is just as impossible as pure communism. As Mises pointed out in 1920, with no markets and no prices, there is no possible way to perform economic calculation. With no economic calculation, the planners have no way of knowing how much of what products to make and at what time to make them [2]. As Mises put it, "Everything would be a leap in the dark. Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy." [3]
Communism, socialism, and fascism - while technically very different - are often interchangeable in day to day conversation. Broadly speaking, a good term to encompass all three systems would be yet another -ism, "collectivism." Whichever of these -isms you are referring to, you can be assured that they leave no room for private property and liberty. Thankfully, the pure theoretic ideals of the -isms are also technically impossible, and therefore, the proponent of liberty should always be of good cheer. As Murray Rothbard stated,
"The eventual victory of liberty is inevitable, because only liberty is functional for modern man. There is no need, therefore, for libertarians to thirst maniacally for Instant Action and Instant Victory, and then to fall into bleak despair when that Instant Victory is not forthcoming. Reality, and therefore history, is on our side."
Reference
[1] Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. pg. 394-395.
[2] Ludwig von Mises. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. 1920.
[3] Ludwig von Mises. Socialism. 1922.
0 comments:
Post a Comment