Socialism and Individuality

Socialism properly understood is a romantic ideology, it finds itself confined not within the cultural or social context originating from the aims of men, or of any ‘golden historical age’ but rather from an ideated development in human nature. Of course, they revise history of the primitive ages in order to lessen the romantic and utopian character of their system, but all the true, underlying character of socialism remains all the same. No matter how much one may condemn the so-called ‘bourgeois’ interpretations of history, and of primitivism, the fact itself that primitive and communal societies were brutish, short-lived and devoid of harmonious companionship does not change. It is quite unfortunate that the lay public more than the historians have come to accept the utterly false, and revisionist socialist interpretation of primitive agricultural societies as some sort of ‘free heaven-like lifestyle’ where all men worked joyously alongside one and other, the lions and elephants pulled the carriages and the water was, in all places, abundant and pure. Men did not fear or suspect one and other, they were free from all motives or drives, they were merely passively adapting and enjoying their time in the golden-age of freedom. There was no ‘greed’ or ‘materialism’, all men cared not for the quantity, and the reward in the gratification of their desires. There was no hostility, and no ‘contradictions’ caused by individuality. All men were equal, in skill, in capability, in happiness, and in all other bounds of life. There was no difference between men, under communal and primitive life all men were infinitely capable of everything, and required no specialisation to be optimally productive.

We must reject such a romanticised interpretation of history provided by our socialist revisionists, the reality is, no matter how many attempts there is to obscure and revise it, primitive life was far from this. Living conditions were comparatively abhorrent, required labour for bare minimum material wellbeing was shockingly high. Men were not, as is claimed, compassionate, altruistic and with no regard for the gratification of things they themselves desired. Quite the opposite is true, communal life tended to induce large amounts of suspicion, an aversion to transparency, envy and sometimes even despotic acts predicated on pure greed. The communal mentality, and its modern love-child the extended family has impaired productivity, living standards and innovation. This is particularly true of a long-standing cultural heritage in which theft is obscured, propagandised, moralised and entitlement to another's justly owned property considered a given. Indeed, the products of such a culture feel no obligation to provide for themselves, how could the case possibly be that they are responsible for themselves and their own provisions? The mere assertion that individuals are responsible for their own standing in life, their own decisions and mentality responsible for where they end up and their tenacity responsible for how far they make it seems inconceivable to them. It is not their own doing where they end up, they decree. Their own decisions are not determined by themselves, rather by outside forces such as the immediate family, or the productive relations of their local community. To suggest that, in order to align oneself on a path toward anything one must first have the capabilities to individually think, determine what they value and distinguish for themselves what is right, or moral, and what is wrong, or immoral is to them to suggest nonsense. Men should not actively engage in the destruction of what the natural order intends for us. Indeed, they must suggest that we should passively adapt and let go of the brutal fact that the natural order of things, without the active decision making and plan-making of men, life is nothing more than constant conditions of labour just to survive, and to yield to the command of the tribes or communes that instil the most fear in the hearts of their competitors. Only where men actively take charge of the foundation mother nature has given him does he come to transform reality into something better suited for his own ends, and the development of the human race.

What does it mean to be a human, it may be asked. Put simply, the quality of humanity is his ability to understand, and to actively divert the natural course of events as they are dictated by natural laws. It his ability to go beyond the natural responses of the beasts, as conditioned by their environment and to divert the developing state of affairs that, absent his active intervention would have developed. The quality of being human is therefore the quality of being unwilling to yield to nature, and to assert an influence on it that we may use what has been given to us in the form of natural resources to yield products, through our exertion of mental and physical energy, and thereby making these future state of affairs more preferable to us. To adopt a policy of passive action toward the ‘natural state of affairs’ is to condemn humanity, and civilisation itself. The socialist must distinctly be anti-productivity, anti-man, and anti-civilisation. Historically speaking, the evolution of civilisation and trade can be shown most bluntly through both the Greek, and Phoenicians around 750 to 550 B.C. Both these powers were considered ‘centres of trade’ and thus attracted high volumes of trade over large distances. This allowed major expansions of both ancient kingdoms populations, allowing for a higher volume of production, more trade and better living standards. Trade is a long-standing relic, even over large distances. For example, evidence suggests that trade has existed in Europe over large distances even during the Palaeolithic age, around 30,000 years ago. The establishment of large distance trade was used as a form of specialisation, mainly through comparative advantage. The basic economic law states that, even countries that are more efficient at producing every good than a potential trading partner, it is still beneficial for these more efficient producers to specialise in producing goods they are most efficient and producing. The key to understanding the development of society is through the development of both trade, and production. To demand any good in exchange under Barter conditions, according to Says Law, one must produce a good that can be exchanged. If there is no production, in general, there can be no demand. Indeed, how could it be possible to demand that which does not exist? Therefore, in order to trade nations must extend their capabilities of production, and output. This was done through the recognition of individualism, and the humanity in men. Men are not created equal, we differ in physical height, IQ, brain structures, muscle composition, personalities, skills, interests, etc. The failure to recognise the individuality of men, as the socialists do, is the failure to recognise the humanity of them. Men are not merely a clump of homogenous units, each with the same build, interests and skills. They cannot be treated according to one singular model in which we are all equal on all grounds, to do so is to revolt against sound reason and to treat men according to some aggregate categorisation is to reject the fundamental doctrines of economics. To expand output, and make production more efficient, production must necessarily be divided and specialised among labourers and entrepreneurs. As production becomes relatively more specialised according to how productive men are in producing certain things, others things being equal, it will create a higher volume of output. If Crusoe can catch 5 fish on a Friday, or he can make 8 rods and Jane can catch 3 fish on that same Friday, or make 10 rods, to make production as effective as possible production will be treated in such a way that, in accordance with the variety of different skills of different men, Crusoe will stick to catching fish, and Jane making rods. If Crusoe and Jane split their efforts, they may only be able to catch a total of 3 fish, and make 6 rods. Whereas if they specialise their efforts, they will be able to catch a total of 5 fish, and make 10 rods. This basic demonstration illustrates how vital the role of individuality, and the division of labour is in production.

The socialist, of course, refuses to recognise this fact. They decree that “Men are inherently equal!” “The division of labour is oppressive and creates inequality!” and so on. While it may be true that the division of labour creates ‘inequality’ is this a bad thing? So what? Do the men who have spent several decades honing and mastering their craft, sacrificing much and with great tenacity deserve to be rewarded no more than the slump who contributes nothing and leeches off the efforts of the masters efforts? Men, at their very nature are not equal, to treat all men as equal is in reality, unfair. It destroys economic incentives, obscures the humanity in people, and cripples productivity. The socialist, as he often does, will proclaim that the transformation of material conditions will also transform the nature of man. Somehow, which has up until this point never been explained, and my guess would be never will be explained, the transformation from capitalism to socialism will change the nature, and psychology of men. It will create a new species all-together, men will be pushed to their full-potential under socialism. They will no longer be humans, but rather superhumans. The division of labour is no longer required under such a system, all men are already optimal at everything and require nothing. They are perfectly willing to give up the fruits of their activity to their comrades, and have no desire for personal gratification of anything. Indeed, the romanticism of the socialist ideology is clearer than ever. According to Ludwig Von Mises;

“Romanticism is man’s revolt against reason, as well as against the condition under which nature has compelled him to live. The romantic is a daydreamer; he easily manages in imagination to disregard the laws of logic and nature. The thinking and rationally acting man tries to rid himself of the discomfort of unsatisfied wants by economic action and work; he produces in order to improve his position. The romantic … imagines the pleasures of success but he does nothing to achieve them. He does not remove the obstacles; he merely removes them in imagination … He hates work, economy and reason.”

The socialist is a romantic utopian, he is not practical nor guided by reason. The practical considerations that it has been given, for imposing a regime of egalitarianism has been one imbued in collectivism, and totalitarianism drawing out of the French Revolution. Those early socialist thinkers in France wanted to, not by any design of free men chosen and guided by reason establish a political structure, but rather they wanted to establish such a political system based on the faculties of violence or coercion. Unlike the libertarian, those who deviate from the socialist regime are sent away for ‘re-education’ and brainwashed into the socialist regime. They threaten violence and revolution against those who dissent them. The freedom of thought, and speech is inconceivable under socialism. Everyone is accorded to some group, or commune, and from that point on he must follow all he is told. He must think, in uniformity with all his other commune members and critical thinking is barred. The Marxist rejection of the division of labour makes this ever clearer, both as it comes to the original Marxist theories, and the newer political interpretations of socialism. This would explain the new left’s shift toward supporting such nations as communist China, under Mao and Cuba under Che Guevara. Mao especially has attempted, through political forces to force upon China’s inhabitants an egalitarian regime in the socialist spirit. He set out to kill the distinction between urban and rural communities, and directed the course of production as to establish an egalitarian orientated uniformity. Marx stresses his position in both Critique of the Gotha Programme, and The German Ideology. In the former, he likens the division of labour to slavery, and in the latter Marx states;

“In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.”

The socialist, thus, is interested not in creating better living standards, or in setting both body and mind free but rather, he is interested in establishing uniformity and non-humanity. The inhabitants of socialism become test subjects more than they are men, the egalitarian regime must, if it so succeeds turn them into nothing more than socially engineered puppets more than they are free thinking individuals that can exercise their faculties of reason. Ironically enough, it was Lenin who found in practice that Robert Michels Iron Law of Oligarchy was inescapable. This law states that, in conditions of social cooperation, there will naturally develop a hierarchy of leaders, and of followers. The egalitarian regime was not, in its totality feasible. In developing a political structure out of the Russian Revolution Lenin recognised there had to be some form of hierarchy and leadership to lead the socialist nation, not everyone could be equal. The ‘vanguard’ was a necessary tool of the state, and more generally hierarchy was a necessary tool of the state in order to impose egalitarianism on the ‘lower classes.’

To sum up, I hope to have shown that socialism, properly understood is an anti-human theory. It reduces and throws away the individuality of men, ignores fundamental economic laws and refuses the freedom that we so cherish. For men to develop their individual personalities and traits, it is necessary that they be allowed to freely think and exercise their faculties of the mind as Herbert Spencer has so described. Socialism does not permit this, it reduces men to test subjects and loyal followers of the state. Socialism is not a practical theory, it is romantic and utopian. It is, as Mises puts it, man’s revolt against reason. Socialism will, and historically always has ended in disaster with many dead, families traumatised, and in misery than can never be compensated for. Recent surveys, particularly in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe have indicated that newer generations are becoming increasingly favourable to socialism, this should be deeply concerning for those that not only value their freedom, but their humanity itself. Socialism is anti-man, anti-reason. It is a revolt against nature.