Socialism: Introductory comments

Since the three terms are floating about-with solid reason-lately, I thought it might be useful to compare and contrast the words Socialism, Communism, and Marxism. I will review each in turn, but the short entry point I will offer is that, in my view, Socialism is based on a MORAL understanding, Communism is based on a POLITICAL understanding, and Marxism is based on an ECONOMIC understanding. Clearly, there are ample amounts of overlap between all three, but I think this heuristic distinction is helpful, since it sheds light on aspects of these thought systems that are otherwise hidden in impenetrable rhetoric, and abusive logical fallacies. At the bottom of this piece you will find three pictures, each of which links to a statement on one of these topics. Since most people are not taught even basic history--or forget it in the manifold intentional confusions engendered by modern media--I would like to contextualize these ideas within the broader space of human history. Quite literally, history--as the written or oral record of actual events--begins with empires. The first empires worth the title were in China and Iraq. If we posit that tribes preceded formal states-as seems reasonable-the process of empire began when a powerful leader arose in one tribe, and conquered other tribes. Now, empires-which normally included city states, with the possible exception of the Mongol empire (and others of which I am unfamiliar)-were predicated on agriculture. What agriculture did was facilitate being stationary, and accumulating wealth. This wealth, in turn, enabled the development of classes, of which one was almost invariably a martial class. Such classes, over time, took to looking over the proverbial "hill" at other states, and began coveting their stuff. They would gather their troops, invade, subjugate them, then make them share some part of their production with them, typically in the form of taxes. They also, of course, took whatever they wanted, including women, cattle, and any objects of value. This is what happened in China, and Eurasia. When we study history, we study the Sumerians, and Babylonians, and Assyrians, and Persians, and Greeks (who categorically were imperialists), and Romans. Now, an implicit assumption underlying this was that there was a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that if you wanted more stuff, you needed to take it from someone else. Wealth was a zero sum game, in which someone else's gain was necessarily someone else's loss. You couldn't just make it yourself. Within this world, of course, traders represented Capitalism, in the general sense of accumulating (or borrowing) some money, going somewhere and buying something, then going somewhere else and selling it at a profit. To the extent farmers and artisans were able to sell their goods at whatever price the market would bear, they too were small time Capitalists. Yet, traders were typically culturally shunned. In China, the recognized cultural hierarchy--from the time of Confucius at least, and likely before, up to 20th Century--was the literati at the top, followed by food producers, then artisans, then businessmen (actors, incidentally, were right at the bottom, as corrosive to public morality). The thought process was that since businessmen/traders did not MAKE anything, that they were almost useless. To this must be added, though, that the practice for most of Chinese history was that the State would fix the prices of various commodities, such as rice and fabric, and they would carry on unchanged for hundreds of years, subject to occasional, but not radical change. This was likewise the practice in medieval Europe. In times of famine, those who dared raise prices were often attacked, and there was more than one case where villagers would break into stores, steal bread, then pay what the State had said was a fair price (one sees the term "Just price" often, from which "social justice" can be readily deduced). The price of bread was, in fact, a not inconsiderable precipitating factor in the French Revolution. Thus, both Europe in the Middle Ages, and China for most of its history (I am painting with a very broad brush, so that we don't get stuck in details; obviously there is much local variation I am skipping over), were stuck by design in a system in which there was no incentive for anyone to produce more than necessary for their own upkeep, and the payment of taxes. Thus, economic development was only enhanced by the fortuitous development of new technologies, of which there were quite a few (in Europe) at the beginning of the second Millenium. Innovation was, in effect, an accident. It was absolutely not a part of the system, which viewed stasis as the ideal. When the New World opened up, this was of course a cause of great excitement, since it opened up a whole new source of stuff, which included not just new sources of food and other goods, but also new markets to sell to. What rapidly developed was the theory of Mercantilism, which in effect equated wealth with specie (gold, silver, and other precious goods), and in which that nation won who could best "rig" trade relations in their own favor. Everyone was constantly trying to keep everyone else from trading on favorable terms with themselves, while trying to get favorable terms for their own goods. They would put high tariffs on imports, and demand no tariffs on exports. Of course, if everyone does this, nobody really wins. This led to much military conflict, and much trade conflict. A key strategic role for the colonies of the European powers at this stage was that they could require the colonies to buy their goods-and no one else's-and control what came out of the colonies, as for example by the British Navigation Act, which made it hard or impossible for Americans to trade with anyone but the British. Practically, though, Mercantilist trade practices can be seen as an extension of warfare. Individuals and groups, such as the British East India Company, and the Dutch East India Company, would be given monopolies on trade by their governments. India was first "invaded" by the British East India company, whose goal was, in effect, to steal the goods of the Indians, then trade it to the British at a huge markup, with no fear of competition. The monopoly was enforced by the British military. In a zero sum game, trade is a contact sport. If you lose, then your nation is weakened, and if you win, then it is strengthened. There is no provision for mutual benefit. Free trade is the doctrine, on this account, of saps and fools. The key point here, though, is that Mercantilism relied on strong governmental intervention in the economy, typically to the benefit of very few, and the detriment of most others. As one website put it: "[In Mercantilism] Groups with political power use that power to secure government intervention to protect their interests while claiming to seek benefits for the nation as a whole." Adam Smith, of course, changed all this with the simple idea that trade-all economic transactions-could benefit ALL parties. He further pointed out that labor specialization made production much more efficient, and that Mercantilism benefited very few, the power elite, who had access to the plum monopolies only being politically connected could provide. This is what happens when the State has full control of private enterprise. In sum: prior to the advent of modern free trade and laissez faire economic policies, the modes of economic production were either feudal-groups of peasants producing for themselves and a landed aristocrat, whose ancestors had won the estate in some long past military victory-or highly prejudicial to a small elite. These were the choices. Either you invade someone else and steal their stuff physically, or you use coercive pressure-backed by the military--to exact trade concessions that are beneficial to you, and not to the other party. Perhaps the most blatant and unknown example of this is when the British "opened up" China. They had long wanted to sell something to the Chinese, but the Chinese didn't really want to be traded with. They didn't like merchants or foreigners. The British, though, hit upon opium as something that was profitable, and the use of which would grow steadily, as people became addicted. So they grew it in Bengal, then shipped it over. The Chinese, fed up with the social ills this brought, eventually banned opium, and seized some British cargoes. The British responded with a military flotilla that forced the Chinese government into surrender quickly, and which made the de facto subjugation of China by European powers inevitable. One does see, throughout this period, and around the world, the combination of military force, and commercial monopoly. This is, properly, what is referred to as Imperialism. It was an abusive system, both to the countries thereby "penetrated", and to much of the population of the countries from which it originated, who saw few if any of the benefits of it. Rather, small groups of people became enormously wealthy. Free trade is not imperialism, however. In a truly free market, no transaction happens if both parties do not benefit from it. Moreover, the profit motive provides the driving energy to greater production, higher quality, and lower prices IF it is combined with competition. Now, the SOLE role of government in truly free trade is to enable competition. It does this by prohibiting violence between rivals, and between labor and Capital. It does this by enforcing contracts. And it does it by outlawing both Capital and Labor trusts. As Adam Smith himself noted, if the owners of the means of production get together, competition for labor can be eliminated. Lesser observed, but quite pernicious in the modern era, Labor can do the same, so that the owners of, say, large automobile manufacturers are forced to pay artificially high wages, to the detriment of all but those workers lucky enough to keep their jobs. Our options, then, economically, are a static system of fixed prices, fixed wages, and an enforcing class (examples would include classical China, feudal Europe, and modern Cuba); a dynamic, imperialistic regime backed by the military that takes from others, through both unfair trade deals and outright conquest (examples would include Imperial Britain and the former Soviet Union); and free trade, protected by-but not interfered with, by a democratic government (example: the modern United States). These are preliminary statements. Click on the pictures below for fuller explanations of my views on Socialism, per se, Communism, and Marxism.