Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Socialism as Religion
Years ago, I got into a discussion about the “tragedy of the commons” (that is, the overexploitation of unowned resources) with a socialist. I cited the fact that elephant herds were growing in African nations in which tribes could own the herds, while they were shrinking in nations that did not allow ownership. Elephants often destroy crops, so tribes have little incentive to protect them and every incentive to kill them. If they own the elephants, however, and can use them as a resource, the incentives change.
The socialist’s response was that he would rather elephants go extinct than such majestic creatures be owned by anyone. He didn’t respond when I suggested that elephants might have a different take on the issue.
How do you reason with people who would rather a species – perhaps even the human species – go extinct than that their aesthetic sensibilities be offended?
Published in General
I don’t suspect that “reason” ever enters the picture with your socialist friend.
That’s a scary example of the psychology we are dealing with, Richard. Those who have absorbed the socialist religion, and then come out of it, usually describe the process as starting with long period of deepening disillusionment with the continued failures of the religion to keep its promises. Then they see the theology slowly transforming, as the religious leaders find the need to paper over the discrepancies with more and more lies, and enforcement with more and more callous treatment of the faithful.
Then there is a moment when something snaps. A good person is denounced, disappears, and then is shot, in the case of the police state-phase of socialism. Or in a peaceful society, an argument over ideology develops, and the absurdity suddenly becomes too much to take.
Some are intelligent people who got involved early, for social-sexual motivations, like P.J. O’Rourke, and as maturity increases, the critical thinking process kicks in for the first time, and they say ‘this is stupid’. They often turn completely around and become intellectual advocates of rational ideas, as he did. Others lack the intelligence to ever go through that, and they stay in till they die.
When we fail to break through, time after time, we are sometimes unknowingly contributing to the pressure of reason building slowly inside a dormant critical mind that has simply been paralyzed by psychological conditioning. We shouldn’t get discouraged.
It’s another “let them eat cake” moment, or something similar I encountered years ago.
I was arguing with someone, and they were asserting that poor people remained poor because they bought cheap junk at Wal Mart, all made in China. If they were smarter, she asserted, and bought their goods at Macy’s or through some other quality outlet, they wouldn’t have to replace them so often.
I pointed out that they couldn’t afford to shop at Macy’s in the first place.
Her response was effectively that this was their fault.
Better to remain true to one’s principles, it seems and starve to death, than to admit one’s principles are misguided.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus. Let justice be done, though the world perish. Humans have such a yearning for justice that they are often willing to destroy decent advances and improvements because they aren’t just enough.
I mentioned to some lefties a few years ago that Mexico’s economy is going great partly because they put more capitalism into their oil industry. Now it’s a thriving growth industry. Apparently, oil companies should be socialized and the profits shared with the nation. The benefits to Mexicans getting jobs and cheaper oil was really beside the point.
It isn’t just your friend Richard. It’s deeply baked into the cake of human nature to have that impulse.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus is a Latin phrase, meaning “Let justice be done, though the world perish.” This impulse has been going on for a long time.
Furthermore, we don’t do enough to be grateful for what we have.
Socialism is unambiguously a religion. It even started out that way, but unlike Judaism or Christianity it’s relatively modern so lacks the depth and wisdom that developed slowly over the centuries. Socialism has influence on young folks as it seems to make more sense to them than a god centered religion they’re taught as kids. It takes many years to sort it all out and many never come back to Judaism or Christianity because these require more study, insight and wisdom not to mention openness to the whole idea than not. But not, even if they cease to believe in the socialist nonsense, leaves them vulnerable to ideological or political social fads. That is where we are.
One of the most remarkable elements of the socialist mind is the inability to recognize, or even believe in human nature. It’s almost as if people whose minds are like soft clay projecting their own reality on the world while being shaped by their political masters while never recognizing own real nature because they want to be members in a club that elevates them for simply holding [these sacred] beliefs.
Self interest is one of the most powerful motivators, it can’t be effectively replaced with government dictat.
I don’t have a problem with justice, but I do have a problem with the left’s definition of it. Justice, to me means to give to each what is their due – what they have earned. To the left, justice means giving to some what is due to others – the opposite of justice.
That said, like you, I’m not willing to destroy the world to see my definition of justice prevail.
Progressives style themselves the “party of science.” One supposes, then, that they believe in evolution. Do they really believe that a process of iterative “survival-of-the-fittest” would result in a “human nature” that leaves people so dysfunctional that they need Progressives to make every decision for them? And if so, why do Progressives believe that they transcend this dysfunction and are capable of dictating others’ lives?
Well they’re the fittest and have to have a clean up of we the unfit.
So-called “conservatism” (aka. neo-liberalism) is also a religion (the god is Mammon) and will result in equally disastrous results as socialism.
Yet none of my conservative friends have any lust of money, most of us live modest but industrious lives.
If human beings don’t have a human nature. They can be perfected. As Mao Tse-Tung put it, “The blankest page is necessary for the most beautiful writing.” I don’t know why Progressives seem to always assume that they are the best people.
Capitalism helps the poor people and the not politically connected people more than it does the wealthy and powerful. Capitalism (with a little sprinkling of charity and self-discipline) is the best thing for the poor that has ever existed. There is a problem that once you can make alot of money some people become captivated by it but that isn’t the fault of capitalism. The fault ultimately lies with man’s corrupted and corruptible nature.
I’m not sure I understand how the lack of human nature makes perfection possible. My belief is that we’re always improving, albeit very slowly and those seeking perfection now are just petty tyrants.
Just a nice refresher course.
No. They view capitalism as an early stage of Progress (aka History, Evolution). In the last stage, humans will not need others to make decisions for them. They will no longer act as components of separate collections, but as components of a single, perfect collection.
Perhaps they’re not as “conservative” (neo-liberal) as you think they are.
That “debate” was more like tea & biscuits.
It’s more likely you don’t know what conservatives are really like.
Actually, I do. I was one for 20 years.
Correct. This is also one of the main reasons why socialism doesn’t work. In case I’m not making myself clear, I’m certainly not advocating for socialism (nor for capitalism for that matter), rather, I’m advocating for a third way. I don’t have time to get into it here, but I’ve touched on the subject in a post a while back.
Clearly not, while economic interest is an important part of conservatism it’s not the central part. You may recall the “Moral Majority” a loose collection of Christians who don’t partake in elections unless values are at stake, many others like myself and my friends are less motivated by Christianity than by sound principle.
Sure, mainstream Republican leadership have become tools of money and perhaps to a lesser degree others as well, but I think you’d be hard pressed to make a case that the Freedom Caucus serves the dollar.
So if you’re not conservative, what are you now?
Good question. Hard to say. How would you classify Trump?
Generally conservative but certainly not given to any dogma or doctrine.
Good description—that’s what I like about Trump and that’s basically where I’m at.
And self-interest is the motivation behind advocating socialism: it makes the socialist feel good, feeds his self esteem.
The obvious example is the progressive billionaire who is in favor of helping the poor, which lets him feel morally superior while holding on to his money. Survey after survey shows that conservatives give more to charity than liberals do.
Maybe don’t use the elephant example next time. I have to wonder how many people have read and understood Hardin’s essay. The elephants are not a commons in that they are not over-exploited when they belong to no one. The “bad guys” in the elephant narrative are not killing them by overusing them.
Most animal species are “not owned by anyone” and yet manage to thrive. The problem with a commons arises when there is a resource to be exploited and the incentives are for everyone to exploit it without constraint. Ownership provides that constraint. There are other ways to achieve that end. This is a game theory problem.
If your socialist interlocutor had been clever, he would have replied that polar bears will be made extinct by climate change (a false but a useful argument) and hence the UN should own the polar bears. Fortunately for you, socialists are generally quite dim. Also, be advised that Hardin’s commons argument is generally adopted by leftists in service of neo-Malthusianism.
Be careful out there.
How simple it is if you have a salty old Dutch Uncle to explain it to you. If on the other hand, you’ve already demonized the Dutch Uncle as the enemy of the people it isn’t likely that you’d listen to anything he had to say.
Regards,
Jim
Yeah, socialism is a religion for a lot of them. And they never shut up.
The closest I ever got was to ask who the most famous socialists are.
Hitler, Stalin & Mao. Long pause.
I’d love to hear his take on slavery.