In a lengthy essay in today's edition of TCS Daily, Lee Harris asks the question, "Why Isn't Socialism Dead?" Harris quotes Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, as saying capitalism is the only rational alternative, the only way people in poverty truly gain the opportunity to improve their lot in life. Yet, we have seen some resurgence of socialist thought in Latin America, with the coming to power of Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez, under the tutelage of Fidel Castro. This begs the question; from where is this rise in populist thought coming, and where is it heading?
Harris explains the difference between socialism in its revolutionary form, the overthrowing of power and seizing of private assets, and the scientific socialism of Marx. Scientific socialism held that socialism would evolve as a natural progression, a "next step" after the necessary stage of capitalism. In fact, according to Harris, Marx saw the United States as the most progressive country on earth, and a place where socialism would come into being with no revolution or struggle at all, but simply as a transformation.
For Marx, it made no sense for revolutionaries to overthrow capitalism before it had fulfilled its historical destiny; on the contrary, to overthrow capitalism before it collapsed internally would be counter-productive: the precondition of viable socialism was, after all, a fully matured capitalist system that had already revolutionized the world through its amazing ability to organize labor, to make the best use of natural resources, to internationalize commerce and industry, and to create enormous wealth. Therefore, for Marx, there was no point in revolution for the sake of revolution. Instead, the would-be revolutionary had to learn to be patient; he had to wait until the capitalist system had failed on its own account, and only then would he be able to play out his historical role.
Marx believed socialism could only come out of the natural death of capitalism, but the main examples of socialism in the twentieth century came out of the violent revolutionary mold, the seizing of power and assets by such visionaries as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, with his "revolutionary" national socialism. We have seen these powers rise, and watched most of them fall, and been grateful at their demise. These powers have not liberated their people, nor provided the Utopian existence they so fervently believed would follow the revolution. So, where is the remaining lure? Why would any country elect to follow that path, given the example of history?
Harris believes that socialism continues to call its devoted followers because it is actually much more religious in nature than scientific. Like religion, it does not die with disappointment.
It may well be that socialism isn't dead because socialism cannot die. As Sorel argued, the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in "the profounder regions of our mental life," in those realms unreachable by mere reason and argument, where even a hundred proofs of failure are insufficient to wean us from those primordial illusions that we so badly wish to be true. Who doesn't want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?Indeed, the true advocates for any governmental system generally believe that it will bring about right and justice, and benefit the deserving. Capitalists and socialists alike see their preferred system as the one that will cause the most benefit to the most people. However, Harris issues a warning for the advocates of capitalism. He fears that socialism may "spring back into life with a force and vigor shocking to those who have, with good reason, declared socialism to be no longer viable." His reason is man's need for what he calls myth, and the religious nature of its appeal.
Those who, like Chavez, Morales, and Castro, are preaching the old time religion of socialism may well be able to tap into something deeper and more primordial than mere reason and argument, while those who advocate the more rational path of capitalism may find that they have few listeners among those they most need to reach -- namely, the People. Worse, in a populist democracy, the People have historically demonstrated a knack of picking as their leaders those (who) know the best and most efficient way to by-pass their reason -- demagogues who can reach deep down to their primordial and, alas, often utterly irrational instincts.
Unlike Harris, I don't see all religion as a need for myth, nor all religion as myth-like in nature. I believe there is great scientific and historical evidence for the existence of God, and the sacrifice of his Son. However, I do agree with Harris that people need something in which to believe, something which transforms them. What we truly believe ultimately defines who we are, what choices we make, and what we become. Harris believes that capitalism needs to come up with a better myth than socialism, or possibly face the continued rise of socialism in the twenty-first century. He considers the challenge of capitalism to come up with its own transformative myth "perhaps the most urgent question of our time." With our ongoing battle with "Islamic Manifest Destiny" I think there are other issues of at least equal importance that face us today, and any number of yet unseen challenges will confront us before this century passes into history. I can't agree with Harris' conclusion the we need to come up with another, more appealing, myth to counter the old one of Utopian socialism. I believe, as it says in Scripture, that the truth will set you free. We need to seek what's true, not what packages the best. If capitalism truly is the best of all possible systems, it is likely to endure. However, what I came away from Harris' essay with was a better understanding of the continued survival of socialist thought. I can agree that the hold socialism has on its most devoted followers is basically religious in nature. It is a belief system as much as a governmental one. I learned some things in Harris' essay about the history of the socialist movement, and the root of its continued appeal, and for that reason I recommend it.
|