cutezuloo.blogg.se

If progress be synonymous with improvement, there is nothing progressive about them. Neither statism nor bureau­cratic autocracy are anything new under the sun. Even so, the tyranny of the Soviet Union, of Communist China, and of all so­cialist (or socialist inclined) coun­tries is, in the final analysis, the tyranny of bureaucrats. The result is, predictably and demonstrably, bu­reaucratic autocracy, implicitly tyrannical, but in practice more often aggravating because of its pettiness and triviality. It is these bureaucrats who wield the power over the lives and intricate affairs of citizens.

In like manner, they took over bureaucracies, greatly enlarged them, and equipped bureaucrats with a great deal of power with which to achieve their ends. To remain in power, they have found it useful to cultivate the adora­tion and veneration of the state. They have used it to do all sorts of things to usher in socialism, thus building tremen­dously the power of the state. In practice, however, socialists have taken over and used the state when and as they have come to power. The main thing was the destruc­tion of the existing system. To Marx the emer­gence of socialism was inevit­able one need not trouble himself overmuch about precisely how the inevitable would come to pass. The how of reconstruc­tion was the missing link of so­cialist theory. They could describe in detail the evils of the existing systems and the marvels that would be under socialism. Social­ists were always vague as to just how socialism was to be achieved. The state does not wither away because it has been made in­to the instrument through which socialism is to be attained. Anyone can see that gov­ernments everywhere exercise more and more power and that those who wield the power com­mand subordination and obedi­ence. The development of statism -the totalizing of government power over the lives of citizens and the veneration of the organ in which the power resides - is both obvious and readily ex­plained. The results are, in brief, statism, bureaucratic autocracy, neofeudal­ism, and neomercantilism. On the contrary, the movement toward what is supposed to be so­cialism produces results quite the opposite of those claimed for it.Įverywhere the results of the thrust toward socialism are simi­lar in kind, though different in de­gree, depending upon the approach and the zeal behind the effort. Nor is it simply that the actual falls short of the ideal, a develop­ment which might be expected where human beings are involved. “Need” can no more be measured than men can be induced to produce ac­cording to their abilities when re­wards are separated from efforts. Nowhere does “from each according to his abil­ity, to each according to his need” prevail, nor can it do so. In communist countries, the state has not withered away, as Marx predicted instead, it has grown in power and sway. No country in the world has attained even an ap­proximation of the socialist vision.

Socialism is a fan­tasy, and the illusion that it is being approached is in the nature of a mirage. The first thing to be observed about all this is that there is no such thing as socialism, actually or potentially. Those who oppose these steps are called reactionary, conservative, backward – looking, opponents of progress, not of this century, and so on. These steps are called pro­gressive, are said to be in keep­ing with the contemporary situa­tion and modern needs, and are supposed to be pointed toward a brighter future. The American approach to socialism is gradualist, piecemeal, and step by step it is by way of govern­ment intervention, government-provided welfare programs, and government regulation and con­trol. Nonetheless, they have a way of looking at things that embraces the idea. Nor do they employ the Marxian slogan that socialism is the wave of the future. Most Americans who are bent toward socialism do not identify themselves publicly as socialists.