Some cheery thoughts from Dick Morris.
Geez Louise, we had an awful choice in November.
15 thoughts on “Here Comes Socialism”
Comments are closed.
Some cheery thoughts from Dick Morris.
Geez Louise, we had an awful choice in November.
Comments are closed.
Well, all other things being equal, he is probably right. Realistically, why would the United States not ultimately go down the same road as all of its European cultural ancestors? That’s asking a bit much from accidents of government and history, and paying too little attention to the broad and deep currents of culture and genetics.
But…all other things are very likely not to remain equal. For one thing, the United States is the immigrant destination of choice for the entire world. That fact — and the huge waves of immigration it has produced — has radically changed the US more than once. (Indeed, it’s not unreasonable to attribute the recent change towards Democratic politics to the recent wave of immigration from Mexico.)
Furthermore, as each wave accumulates power, it has always collided with previous waves (and with the next one). The conflict of interests has caused each wave in succession, as it increases its private power, to rethink the wisdom of the coercive government power. So far, Madison’s suggestion that the eternal collision of distinct subgroups within the United States would be the best preservative of individual liberty has been borne out. We lurch towards a European collectivism, but then retreat, as it becomes clear that, unlike any of the far more ethnically and culturally pure European states, we cannot agree on the One True Philosophy of government. (Arguably, you see the same thing happening with the surprising weakness of the EU; within a homogenous nation, people can agree on a massive monolithic state, but between nations with significant cultural differences, they are having trouble. It’s worth remembering there is as much, or more, difference between Michigan and South Carolina, between New York and Texas, as there is between Poland and France.)
Ultimately, demographics will rule. Socialism by its nature (and often by design) significantly reduces the fertility of its adherents. Thus it always declines and vanishes, sometimes helped along by the invasion of a more vigorous culture, such as is happening in Europe now with its invading Muslim immigrants. Since the US is such demographic crossroads — a place where the trends in the rest of the planet tend to be amplified — I would be surprised if any “change” implemented by a mere half-generation of aging Flower Power boomers, allied (quite temporarily!) with up-and-coming Hispanic immigrants lasts beyond mid-century.
Besides, who cares? The resourceful and clever man can prosper pretty much equally in a raging free market and a Worker’s Paradise. You may be a CEO in one and a People’s Comissar in the other, but your status and wealth will be similar. It’s only the ignorant and lazy who really suffer — and, since they bring these changes on themselves voluntarily, I don’t see why we should waste any sympathy on them.
Besides, who cares? The resourceful and clever man can prosper pretty much equally in a raging free market and a Worker’s Paradise.
The difference is that in a free society, he is moral. In the other, he is a criminal. So I would amend your statement to . . . the resourceful, clever and amoral man. .
The worker’s paradise, in practice is a highly corrupt society. So corrupt that it eventually dies of it. Europe’s been living off our defense budget and our lust for their products for years. When our standard of living drops, which is a given in socialist societies, they’re going to be in a world of hurt. Particularly with Putin on their back door.
The point being that we may be following their lead, but it will be interesting if we will pull back in time after watching them fall off the cliff. The main charactristic of socialists, it seems to me is a blind faith in their “system” in the fact of evidence. If Europe dies, will we even change course not to follow? I’d wager not.
I sometimes think Morris is an optimist.
within a homogenous nation, people can agree on a massive monolithic state, but between nations with significant cultural differences, they are having trouble.
Explain how the Soviet Union (or even Russia) came to be then.
Socialism by its nature (and often by design) significantly reduces the fertility of its adherents.
Tell that to the Indians. Correlation is not causation.
Thus it always declines and vanishes, sometimes helped along by the invasion of a more vigorous culture, such as is happening in Europe now with its invading Muslim immigrants.
There are about as many Muslim, in proportion, living in the EU as in the USA. At least until Turkey gets in the EU. At which point I guess they will cease to be immigrants.
Europe’s been living off our defense budget and our lust for their products for years. When our standard of living drops, which is a given in socialist societies, they’re going to be in a world of hurt. Particularly with Putin on their back door.
No kidding. Putin is a wild card. As for defense, why bother? Last time Europe tried to its own thing using strength of arms was in the Suez Crisis, and guess what? Their allies, the USA, shot them down. The USA easily says Europe is a bunch of pansies, but if Europe did rearm, they would be the first pushing for disarming. Hypocrisy. I still remember the comments at the time Chirac conducted the last French nuclear tests. There can be no European military superpower without at least getting both European nuclear powers in the same military boat with a unified foreign policy. I do not see that happening any time soon.
PS: I find it funny that you are worried about Obama introducing further socialism in your country after you had W in power. I mean, after such free-market liberal policies such as: no child left behind, the prescription bill, corn ethanol subsidies, invading Iraq and late financing of nearly bankrupt companies… Isn’t this just more of the same?
An authoritarian autocracy was replaced by a toothles sparliament, which was then replaced by a totalitarian thugocracy by force of arms. Not an apt counter-example.
Isn’t this just more of the same?
Yes, it is. And it would have been more of the same (though perhaps not quite so much more) had McCain won.
That’s what’s so depressing.
The rise of a monolithic state has nothing to do with having an homogeneous culture, single language, whatever. There are multicultural countries in Europe (UK, Spain). There are multiple countries in Europe with the same culture (Germany, Austria). Culture means squat. The monolithic state depends on certain economic and military factors. Why do you think the EU is going for a single economy? No state can survive without financing.
Explain how the Soviet Union (or even Russia) came to be then.
Christ, are you an idiot. Or are you unaware that the Soviet Union was constructed and held together by force and violence? Did you not notice how, when the force was withdrawn in the 90s, the USSR exploded into a dozen violently mutually antagonistic shards? Does that tell you anything? Probably not, I suppose.
Tell that to the Indians.
You mean subcontinental Indians? Who are in no serious sense socialists? What the heck are you saying?
Correlation is not causation
Er…in this context, correlation is good enough, my friend. If low fertility correlates with socialism, then socialism is doomed, ipso facto. Whether the one causes the other, or whether they’re both caused by some weird virus, is irrelevant to the outcome.
There are about as many Muslim, in proportion, living in the EU as in the USA.
Really? This site says the population of France is 10% Musllm, while that in the US is 2%. So I’d say you’re 100% full of shit.
Carl,
Even current Russia alone is multi-ethnic and diverse. Russia is not just Moscow. It has twenty-seven co-official languages. That perspective is reductionist. The USA would have exploded in two in the Civil War if it was not for force and violence as well. The reason for the split? IMO it was economical.
The Asian Indians not socialist? They may be less socialist now, even if still not as much as China, but it certainly still is socialist to a degree. Do not believe me? How do five-year plans sound?
Do not confuse the economic system (socialism,capitalism) with the political system (democracy,dictatorship). You can have any mix of those.
Notice I said EU. The EU is bigger than France alone. Reducing the scope to France is similar to looking at the amount of Latinos in New Mexico or Florida and ignoring the rest of the USA. France has lots of Muslims, because when Algeria got independent in the 1960s, massive amounts of people from there moved to France. They are still moving today. It has nothing to do with slow growth, or whatever. That is a different problem altogether.
No state can survive without financing.
Only the incompetent states cannot finance themselves. This isn’t the reason the EU exists. In theory, the EU provides economic and political advantages to its member states. In practice, it appears to turning into a power grab by big fish who want to grow the size of their pond.
> The USA easily says Europe is a bunch of pansies, but if Europe did rearm, they would be the first pushing for disarming.
So what?
If the Euros wanted to arm, the US saying “no” wouldn’t be an obstacle. It’s not like we’re going to do anything to stop them. (Refusing to help isn’t “stopping”.)
Carl, you said “The resourceful and clever man can prosper pretty much equally in a raging free market and a Worker’s Paradise.” I’ve seen you say this sort of thing before, and I think you’re saying it tongue in cheek. But if you mean it, you must think that entrepreneurs work as such for only money and status, and not to follow their dreams as well, and that scientists also are only interested in money (ha!) and status, and aren’t seeking the truth, and not just the politically approved truth. I could go on and on about the benefits of freedom, but surely everyone including you agrees with me, and you’re just kidding around, and I just lack the ability to properly appreciate a cynical joke!
No, I’m serious, Bob. I recognize the “open software” argument you give, which does not materially differ from the classical Marxist’s, that people work for intrinsic, internal reasons, and not for mere grubby money and/or sleazy celebrity.
But it’s just plain dead wrong. The history of “from each according to his abilities” organizations proves that. The USSR died essentially from its inability to sufficiently motivate its own people to work. If you spend enough time around the edges of “open software” projects, you’ll come to realize that those jobs that (1) don’t pay, and (2) have low status, are very often left undone, no matter how important they are. (In a true collectivist society, where smelly jobs must get done, this is where coercion begins.)
Human beings are social creatures, very much so. Although there is plenty of individual variation, it would be much more correct to say that humans generally work mostly because of the status and recognition they get — including good pay, which is a very concrete form of recognition. Indeed, this is why the free market in labor works as well as it does. People voluntarily distribute themselves into jobs for which there is demand, and for which there is social reward and status, largely independent of their own individual personalities.
That’s why we can smoothly move from an economy in 1865 when 50% of us were farmers and farm laborers to an economy in 2009 when 50% of us work in front of computers and push paper. Have people’s personaltiys changed somehow, so that a general taste in 1865 for a robust physical outdoor life, with 13-hours days, has now become a general taste for fluorescent cubicle living, spending 8 hours in an upholstered chair? Of course not. If it were largely individual personalities and dreams that motivated people to pick this job over that, then we’d have a pretty inflexible division of people into physical versus mental labor, inside versus outside, regular 9 to 5 shift work versus irregular two weeks off, two weeks of 14 hour days work. Technological advance would be shunned, because the difficulty of the required forcing of people to change the nature of their jobs would be enormous.
But that’s not the way it is. When society’s needs change, and different jobs and different types of working are more valued, people very smoothly adapt, because most of the reward they feel for working actually does come from the regard and status they get from others. We do what other people want us to do, because their regard pleases us.
As for the bit about prospering in a Worker’s Paradise, I’m serious about that, too. No serious ethics requires me to join the rest of you in self-destruction, if that’s the choice you’ve freely made. If you vote in the Communist Party and turn the country into one giant concentration camp, checking yourselves in at the main gate, I don’t see any ethical requirement for me to line up with you. I’ll be one of the guards instead. I’ll certainly be as ethical and compassionate a guard as I can be, but I’m not going inside the wire out of solidarity with your madness. I’m not Jesus Christ. It’s not my job to save all of humanity, just to do the best I can in the situation I find myself.
Let me put it much more crudely. If you all foolishly decide to destroy the farms and ranches, so that there’s nothing for me and my family to eat but Soylent Green, am I going to let my kids starve because eating people is wrong? Nope.
Obama is the worst choice ever made.