Thursday, 21 December 2006

Socialism, poverty, the class system and Democracy

It is often widely cited by Socialists, many Communists and other idiots from the far left that Socialism and Democracy are a harmonious pair of ideologies, made for each other, grown up with each other and naturally work well together. Despite the hundreds of examples from the past which show the exact opposite, the far left-and indeed, the left in general-continues to believe that Socialism and Democracy work best together. I am going to prove that that is not true.

A Socialist society, like any society, needs a group of individuals-the government-to do certain tasks, like provide certain services. In a Socialist society, this group does far more than it'd otherwise do. The main task the government undertakes would be ensuring complete "equality", using processes such as compulsory income redistribution and government handouts. "Equality" and compulsory income redistribution are contradictory of one another. Compulsory income redistribution, the means to the "equality", is immoral, as it is theft.

As it is compulsory, the income redistribution is theft, as it is forced out of your pockets and your salary for those who are supposedly "less fortunate" than the rest of us. A better desription would be "because Billy is less 'fortunate' than Harry, Billy automatically has a right to a percentage of Harry's money".

The "equality" in the Socialist state would mean that just enough money would be taken from Harry to make Billy equal with him, on top of Billy's income.

But, consider this: how are people "equal" if someone get taxed more than someone else? How are people "equal" if someone is forced to cover two people's expenses when someone else only has to cover half of someone else's expenses?

The (easy) answer: it's impossible. Although Billy and Harry would have the same amount of money after tax, all other expenses excluded, Billy was treated better because he was poorer. He was, in terms of treatment by the state, higher up the class ladder. He got money from the state and Harry's money got taken from him. Therefore, there was ultimately no equality at all.

The result from this can only be one thing: the incentives to work are destroyed. The economy slows down, stops and starts reversing. Jobs dwindle and the nation gets poorer. Then the benefits gradually get smaller, the government can no longer keep up, and eventually collapses.

Most people will say we are a far cry from this nightmare scenario. Although what they say is true, we are, quite clearly, in the first stages. We also seem to be moving at a faster and faster pace as we go along.

Now for the second part of my post.

Put frankly, in a Socialist society, Democracy can't exist. The majority making the decisions is dangerous to equality, especially in Presidential elections, as the current Socialists could be voted out and replaced by a band of, say, racists. The whole idea of equality would be turned on it's head. A solution put forward by Socialists (and yes, I am sick of saying that word) is similar to the solution put forward by Libertarians to protect freedom: a constitution.

However, let's face reality. A Constitution is really only a piece of paper with a few words written on it. It's only useful if it's abided by. Given the opportunity, people will disobey the constitution for their own ends (look at the government of the USA).

An argument by Socialists at this point could be that the ideas of equality and Socialism could be passed down from generation to generation, ensuring the state keeps to those ideas. Those people could then run for President.

Although that is a possibility, there is another problem with Democracy in a Socialist state. It is the fact that other non-Socialist advocates could run for President. Because of this threat, the state must at least surpress these people, or prevent them from running for President. If that were so, all candidates would be Socialists. There would be no real choice.

These political conditions, coupled with the economic effects of "equality" I have posted above, can only result in one thing: dictatorship.

No comments: