Mr. Spherical Model has collected, over time, old talks to
listen to during workouts or long commutes. We were listening to some of those
during a road trip last month, and one of those I knew I’d want to come back
to, to share here. It has me thinking about socialism, what that is, and how
that contrasts with what we want as free human beings.
We’ll start with a few portions of this speech. It’s Marion
G. Romney, in March 1966, in a speech at Brigham Young University. He was at that
time one of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. [Yes, he is related to Mitt Romney, but I’m not sure of the exact
relationship, probably cousins.]
 |
| Marion G. Romney |
The title of the speech is “Socialism and the United Order.”
We’ll mostly deal with the definition of socialism here. But, simply, the
United Order is a way of caring for the poor, the way it was done in the days
of Enoch. In today’s terms, it will suffice to understand that in our Church,
we pay a tithe (a tenth), plus fast offerings (approximately the cost of meals
we miss while fasting), plus welfare activities.
I’ve said before, sometimes it helps to use definitions from
older dictionaries, and that’s what he provides for us, along with a few other
references giving us background and history:
Webster defines socialism as a political and economic theory
of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership, and
democratic management of the essential means for the production and
distribution of goods. Also a policy or practice based on this theory.
George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian socialist, said that
socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the
complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it
into public property, and the division of the resultant income equally and
indiscriminately among the entire population.
George Douglas Howard Cole, noted author and university
reader in Economics at Oxford, defining socialism for the Encyclopedia
Britannica, says that “because of the shifting sense in which the word has been
used, a short and comprehensive definition of socialism is impossible. We can
only say,” he concludes, “that socialism is essentially a doctrine and a
movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interests
of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective
control of the means of production and exchange.”
Socialism arose out of the economic division in society.
During the 19th Century, its growth was accelerated as a protest against the
appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories, and the
unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system.
The Communist Manifesto, drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels for the Communist League in 1848, is generally regarded as the starting
point of modern socialism. The distinction between socialism, as represented by
the various socialist and labor parties of Europe and the New World, and
communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy,
rather than of objective. Communism is only socialism pursued by revolutionary
means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith.
Communists, like other socialists, believe in the collective
control and ownership of the vital means of production and seek to achieve,
through state action, the coordinated control of the economic forces of
society. They differ from other socialists in believing that this control can
be secured and its use in the interests of the workers insured only by
revolutionary action, leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the
creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change.
A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and
communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic Party
set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the
Bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social
Democratic Party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of
political power by constitutional means.
In the 1880s, a small group of intellectuals set up in
England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development
of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands for the evolutionary concept of
socialism, endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of
industries to turn the existing state into a welfare state. Somewhat on the
order of the Social Democrats in Germany, Fabians aim at permeating the
existing parties with socialistic ideas, rather than by creating a definitely socialistic
party. They appeal to the electorate, not as revolutionaries, but as
constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system.
The difference in forms and policies of socialism occur
principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories. They
all advocate the same things, in this respect at least. First, that private ownership of the vital means of production be
abolished, and that all such property pass under some form of coordinated
public control. Second, that the power of the state be used to achieve their
aims. And third, they all claim that with the change in the control of industry
will go to a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system.
I highlighted the summary there at the end. Let’s put them
in bullet points, to see them clearer:
1. Private
ownership abolished, all property under public control.
2. State
coercive power used to accomplish its aims.
3. The
change in control of industry will bring about a change in motives for
productivity.
What are the aims and intentions? The purported aim is to
even things out, to do away with poverty. The way they're going about it will never hit that target. But, should we, as a good people, want to
do away with poverty? Yes. In the Spherical Model, the economic goal is
prosperity—the polar opposite of poverty. But you don’t get north by going
south, or east.
I came across a quote from economist Walter Williams
yesterday:
Prior to capitalism, the
way people amassed wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow
man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.
Capitalism is essentially never evil; it is about using the fruits of your own labor. Capitalism requires private property. It comes down to the
contrast between freedom and slavery. A free man lives his life, and pursues
his goals without coercion. What he accumulates, his wealth—the surplus beyond
what he needs to get by right now—is the fruit of his life. To take that takes
away that part of his life he spent accumulating that wealth. To force a person
to work to accumulate someone else’s wealth is slavery.
We need clearer ways to say things. Bernie Sanders appealed
to many young voters this year by telling them they deserve things like free
college tuition, free health care, much high minimum wages, and less difference
between them and the rich. Donald Trump this week is promising six weeks of
paid maternity leave.
So let’s translate these a little more accurately:
·
If government gives you free college tuition, government
enslaves some other worker(s) to pay for your tuition.
·
If government gives you free health care,
government enslaves some other worker(s) to pay for your health care.
·
If government guarantees you a minimum wage,
government outlaws jobs worth less than that minimum amount. If a business
owner is forced to pay more for a worker than the worker provides to the business, the business
owner is enslaved to work without his due income—he is enslaved.
·
If government promises you six weeks of paid
maternity leave, government either outlaws jobs that don’t bring in to the
business enough surplus to pay for the leave, or government enslaves the
business owner to provide that leave, even if it causes the bankruptcy of the business.
· As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, “The problem with
socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” She also
said,
People want to live in peace…real, lasting peace…the peace
that comes from independence of the state and being able to run your own life,
spend your own money, and make your own choices (1925—April
8, 2013).
Marion G. Romney acknowledges that, even in 1966, America had
already gone a long way toward socialism. He says,
We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership
and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the
free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have
voluntarily surrendered this power to the government. Well, be this as it may,
the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or
even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.
Socialism claims to be for equality, and for freedom from
poverty. But socialism is really about slavery: coercing some people to work
for the benefit of other people. And there will be slaveholders—those who want
to rule. The power-mongers. The tyrants.
Whatever socialism claims to intend, it can’t get anywhere
positive by taking away our God-given freedom. Freedom, prosperity, and
civilization are better alternatives every time than slavery, poverty, and
savagery.
