Government

The Misunderstood And Irrelevant Fear Of Socialism

The fear of socialism seems to be a pressing concern for many, and in the name of defeating it, some people appear willing to tolerate disgusting, un-American behavior by the president.

By  
on

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In response to what many, including myself would call racist rhetoric, the president and his supporters have generally reacted with some combination of denying the president’s comments were racist or maintaining that it is in defense against or an attack upon socialists.

In discussing this current reality, I want to focus on how the misunderstood and irrelevant fear of socialism factors into the continued support of this president. However, by focusing on the irrational hysteria surrounding socialism I would rightfully expect a response from liberals that I am dismissing, setting aside, or ignoring the issue of the president’s racist statements. It takes very little effort however, to defend the argument that the president’s statements fit the very definition of a racist “trope.” And by “trope,” I mean a common saying so associated with racism that unless said in the context of some clear and unambiguous attempt at satire, the general expected reaction from the American public is that the person making the trope is a racist. Speaking of racist tropes, I also believe Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, the person who the president was directing his racist trope at just the other night during one of his disturbing and racist cult rallies, has also uttered statements that what would fit my definition of a racist “trope.” The vast and meaningful difference between the two, however, is that only one, Congresswoman Omar, has apologized for or admitted ignorance to such “tropes,” and thereafter consistently publicly denounced the racism attributed to the trope.

That all said, I would rather focus on how the misguided fear of socialism plays into all this because I think this is where we can extrapolate salvation from the god-level nightmare of discussing the current president’s continual use of racist tropes against members of Congress. Startling claim maybe, but I am not asking for any great shift in human thinking — just that we keep looking to the stars for our salvation as humanity has always done since ancient times. Utilizing the basic tenets of American capitalism, the guarantees in our United States Constitution, and most importantly, by exploiting access to near Earth resources, assures that human conflicts such as the struggle over limited resources that have plagued our species from the beginning are definitively over. These factors also guarantee that the fear of socialism has already been rendered meaningless in a 21st Century economy. In order to understand how socialism is rendered meaningless by the factors I have outlined however, we have to get into some necessary background of what socialism actually is.

Kevin Williamson at National Review has offered what I think is one of the most nuanced and accurate definitions of socialism that could be fit for the 20th Century. My only critique of his piece is that although he sets out to establish a useful definition for the future, the market basics that form the basis of his definition of socialism remain applicable only to the 20th Century.

To illustrate, in his 2011 piece, Williamson argues that the “old” 18th Century definition of socialism should be updated to includestate “ownership or control” rather than depending on “ownership and control.” Furthermore, Williamson defines “public goods” as “goods which are non-rivalrous in their consumption and non-excludable in their distribution.” In defining what a rivalrous or non-rivalrous good is Williamson states:

A rivalrous good is one for which my consumption of one unit of the good leaves one unit less for your consumption. A mango is rivalrous in consumption: Every mango I eat is a mango you cannot eat. But some goods are non-rivalrous: a highway, for instance. If I drive down a mile of highway, that does not leave one less mile for you to drive down.

Sponsored

As to the meaning of non-excludable goods:

But some goods are non-excludable: for instance, a big fireworks display. You could sell tickets to a fireworks display, but people on the periphery would still be able to see the show.

Based on these definitions, to Williamson, government control, i.e., socialism, includes every instance even at a trivial level, where government engages “in the public provision of non-public good.” The problem I have with this definition being apt for a 21st Century American market, is that in the rapidly near future the distinction between a non-public good or public good will be nonexistent. This is because all goods will eventually become non-rivalrous in their consumption and non-excludable in their distribution in the very near future, if not already. To be clear, this is not to say that capitalism is now rendered meaningless and that a state run economy is preferable. In fact, I mean to say the exact opposite. History has shown that an American capitalist economy is preferable to any state run economy by virtually every human metric.

American capitalism has the proven ability to spawn more innovation, lift more people out of poverty, and create more resources/goods than any other human economic system. Unleashed into the limitless markets that can be found in just near-Earth space, I would argue capitalism is our best–known vehicle to bring humanity into the inevitable limitless goods and resources reality. In fact, the only danger I see is that some humans will want to deny this inevitable limitless reality to others out of some sort of racial, religious, or nationalist spite. Despite the fact that human poverty or exploitation would no longer make even any harsh or cruel economic sense given robots are cheaper and more efficient than human’s are in working in space. The larger point I am trying to make is, because the struggle over limited resources is already over, and human exploitation will no longer make any economic sense means that the harmful offsets from traditional human struggles and exploitation, such as racism, will also be made more illogical and irrelevant to society than they are even today.  

To be clear, I am no naïve optimist. I can only repeat that given over a 100,000 people have been escaping extreme poverty every day, for a quarter of a century steady, it is only logical to expect that human growth can or should continue until human poverty is entirely eliminated and a limitless era is achieved in the very near future, indeed well within my lifetime. Moreover, by utilizing near-Earth resources the growth out of human poverty will not depend upon finite Earth resources or be limited by the available abundance of any resource humans currently or could ever possibly value.

Sponsored

Neither do technological limitations bind us. Very soon, if not already, we will possess the ability to “design the machine that can build the machine that can do any physical work, powered by sunlight, more or less for the cost of raw materials.” But again, and I cannot stress this enough, with access to near-Earth resources, the cost of raw materials will be made nonexistent. It may seem absurd for you to imagine, but in the relatively near future, human drudgery, intellectual or physical, will be rendered meaningless or at least circumscribed to human leisure, as all goods will be readily obtainable at the fingertips of every human, being regardless of whether they deserve it or not. In other words, in the very near future, every single human being can be guaranteed a life similar to what those who are born only to the super rich today can experience. And like being born intovirtually limitless wealth today, deserving will have nothing to do with it.  

Perhaps most importantly to those like Williamson, in a limitless era, civil liberty and the freedom to engage in self-regarding acts unrestrained by state run collective “plans” is only made more valuable and possible. Nevertheless, given the value of information to human beings generally, we will continue human advancement regardless of any state plan. The “train is already out of the station” so to speak, “and there’s no brake to pull.” Most important to me however, is acknowledging that because exploitation of human labor or finite Earth resources no longer makes any economic, much less any logical, sense, I ask, why should any of us, including the people who support or criticize it, really give a shit about 20th Century socialism?

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Topics

, , , ,