Socialism’s Acolytes

Disguised Dictators Or Useful Idiots?

Every socialist is a disguised dictator-- Ludwig von Mises

Despite what von Mises says, there are two types of people who believe in socialism, those who’ve studied the writings of Marx and his disciples and are convinced of the inevitability of his utopian dream, and those who think it’s “nice.” Both groups are comprised mainly of fools but only one wishes to lord it over the rest of society, the other just wants to be “nice.”

One group will use any means necessary to bring about their utopian goal, the other just wants to be “nice.” The utopians cannot be convinced of the wrongness of socialism as they are disciples of Marx and thus immune to logic. There may still be hope for the “nice” people.

How do we help the “nice” people? There is a subcategory within the nice group which Stalin referred to as “useful idiots.” Like the ideological Marxist acolytes, logic cannot reach them. Attempts at debate, if you can call it that, will inevitably devolve into accusations that you are a fascist and claims that “real communism has never been tired.” One is reminded of what Morpheus said about people living in the matrix:

“You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

There is little chance that these people can be deprogrammed which leaves us with what we might call “the naïve,” people who are genuinely well-meaning but have not really thought things through. How can we reach them? Patient, repeated, and gentle persuasion is our only hope. Which brings us to this comment: just because our taxes pay for it doesn’t mean it’s socialism.

Author and Founder of Wrong Speak Publishing’s 'Black Victim to Black Victor: Second Edition' is now available at Wrong Speak Publishing, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble! Pick up your copy today!

There is a trend these days for people on the left to argue that anything the government pays for is socialism. By this logic, the police, fire departments, the post office, roads, and yes even the military are examples of socialism. It is tempting to agree with this logic as we all pay taxes to fund these services which everyone gets to use and that’s socialism, right? Not so fast.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it blurs the distinction between two very different things, essential services necessary for society to function and socialism which advocates workers owning and managing the means of production for the common good.

Taxpayers fund many services that the government provides, some should clearly be performed by private industry, some sit in a grey area, and some should remain under government control.

Privatizing the military is something few people favor largely because the loyalty of the military could then be bought by the highest bidder. Similarly, if the police were run by industries, then “owners” would be free to, if not create their own laws, decide which laws should be enforced. As a democracy, we understand that both organizations must be subordinate to the politicians we elect. This is not socialism; it is merely common sense.

The argument against privatizing fire departments is similar to that against privatizing the military and the police. One needs only look at Rome to see the dangers of relying strictly on private fire departments. Marcus Licinius Crassus, the creator of the first Roman fire brigade, refused to allow fires to be put out until the owners sold the buildings to him at a discount. Even if a private fire department weren’t corrupt would it be required to respond to a fire at a house that didn’t pay for the service or was behind in payments? No, once again, this is not socialism, just an essential service.

Government funding of roads follows more of a grey area. Both the Mises Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education have argued that roads should be privatized. The case is stronger here than with the services we’ve already looked at but it’s still weak. Privatizing roads would leave holes in the nation’s infrastructure since businesses would only fund roads that benefited their businesses and the poor lack the resources to build their own. It’s one thing to privatize the post office and require that it be funded by people who use it, it’s quite another to suggest that people in poor neighborhoods somehow find a way to pay for their own roads. The argument that public roads benefit us all is still very strong.

Which brings us to the post office. Why do we all pay for this when FedEx, UPS, etc. are more than capable of doing the job and likely doing it more efficiently and effectively? Two reasons: history and inertial. At one time only the government had the resources to perform this service.

Over time, as private national infrastructures grew and business cases were developed demonstrating the profitability of package delivery services, companies arose that could not only compete but exceed the capability of the post office. The post office continues to exist for one reason, inertia. Governments are not good at giving up control. Bureaucrats will argue that if the service were handed off to private industry some people would go unserved. This is untrue, and the UK has shown it by privatizing the Royal Mail to some extent.

Socialism has been around for a long time, but not as long as the military, police, fire departments, and postal service. Giving credit to socialism for services that existed prior to its invention is ahistorical, not that it matters to socialists. Still, it bears saying if for no other reason than to demonstrate what we’re up against. Ignorance and dishonesty.

There is one final point that shows that these services are not socialist in nature and that is the unending debates around costs. Were the goal socialist in nature cost would not be a factor but everyone, apart from the current Canadian government, understands that resources are not unlimited and that tradeoffs and compromises must be made for society to properly function.

There is nothing wrong with misunderstanding the difference between socialism and government services. This is clearly what the “nice” people are doing. The danger is that when the utopians equate the two, they are not making a mistake, they are lying.

Their argument is dishonest because its goal is to redefine everything the government does as socialism so that they might institute real socialism. Their goal is not to provide essential services but to expand government control. To ignore the reality of limited resources and the dangers of excessive government power in pursuit of their utopian delusions.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.