{"id":3310,"date":"2014-08-27T03:01:33","date_gmt":"2014-08-27T03:01:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/?p=3310"},"modified":"2014-08-27T03:03:06","modified_gmt":"2014-08-27T03:03:06","slug":"dissent-under-socialism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/blog\/2014\/08\/dissent-under-socialism\/","title":{"rendered":"Dissent Under Socialism – Article by Sanford Ikeda"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"The<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Sanford Ikeda
\n<\/big><\/big><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
August 26, 2014<\/span>
\n<\/big><\/div>\n
******************************<\/div>\n
\n

The Daily Mail reports<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cFrance’s Socialist government provoked outrage \u2026 by becoming the first in the world to ban protests against Israeli action in Palestine.\u201d The socialist interior minister justified the ban by citing the potential for violent clashes in Paris between opposing groups, which he deemed a \u201cthreat to public order.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

My object here is not to comment on any aspect of the conflict in the Middle East or on this ban, which may or may not be justified. What caught my eye in the story is the following quote:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Sylvie Perrot, another pro-Palestine activist from Paris, said: \u201cFascist states stop people demonstrating against wars\u2014it is beyond belief that French Socialists are following their example.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Au contraire!\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

If you understand the nature of socialism, it\u2019s quite believable.<\/span><\/p>\n

Collectivism and dissent<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Let me begin by defining \u201ccollectivism\u201d as any economic system in which the State controls the principal means of production. Collectivism requires central planning of some kind over the resources the State controls. The particular brand of collectivism we\u2019re talking about depends on the aims of the controllers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In theory, \u201csocialism\u201d aims to unite people around the world regardless of nationality toward a common internationalist goal, while in theory \u201cfascism\u201d aims to unite people of a particular nation toward a common nationalist goal. The ends differ but all forms of collectivism use the same means: State control (de facto<\/i> or de jure<\/i>) over the means of production. Given their common collectivist roots, then, it shouldn\u2019t be surprising that fascism and socialism employ similar policies.<\/span><\/p>\n

Even more than that, however, F. A. Hayek points out, in The Road to Serfdom<\/i><\/a>: \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

That socialism so long as it remains theoretical is internationalist, while as soon as it is put into practice \u2026 it becomes violently nationalist, is one of the reasons why \u201cliberal socialism\u201d as most people in the Western world imagine it is purely theoretical, while the practice of socialism is everywhere totalitarian.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I would recommend the chapters in The Road to Serfdom<\/i> where Hayek explains why this is the case (especially \u201cIndividualism and Collectivism,\u201d \u201cPlanning and Democracy,\u201d \u201cPlanning and the Rule of Law,\u201d and \u201cThe Socialist Roots of Naziism\u201d), but here are two important points in that explanation.<\/span><\/p>\n

First, to the degree that the State undertakes central planning of the resources it controls, it can\u2019t allow any person to interfere with or oppose the plan. Or, as Hayek puts it, \u201cIf the state is precisely to foresee the incidence of its actions, it means that it can leave those affected no choice.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, the more resources the State controls, the wider the scope and more detailed its planning necessarily becomes so that delay in any part of the system becomes intolerable. There is little room for unresponsiveness, let alone dissent. Hayek again:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

If people are to support the common effort without hesitation, they must be convinced that not only the end aimed at but also the means chosen are the right ones. The official creed, to which adherence must be enforced, will therefore comprise all the views about facts on which the plan is based. <\/span>Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support.<\/em> [emphasis added]<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My point is that even if genuine socialism of some kind did exist in France (or anywhere else), the government there could not allow spontaneous political demonstrations, for the reasons Hayek outlines in The Road to Serfdom<\/i>. Collective political ends must trump individual expression.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

That a socialist government would ban political demonstrations should then come as no surprise.<\/span><\/p>\n

The problem is central planning\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Friends of mine have objected that these arguments are misplaced because genuine socialism doesn\u2019t exist in France, and that political parties who brand themselves \u201csocialist\u201d aren\u2019t really socialist at all, at least in the sense defined here.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But Hayek\u2019s point is that intolerance for dissent grows with the scope of central planning. Thus, the principle also applies in the case of a mixed economy, such as the United States, with more limited central planning. To the extent that the U.S. government tries to pursue collectivist ends\u2014say, during times of war\u2014the greater the pressure on public officials to quell open displays of protest.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the more things the central government plans for, the less freedom\u2014of expression, assembly, association\u2014there can be. If the State controls all means of production and all resources are placed in the hands of the authorities, then in effect all forms of expression\u2014in politics, science, religion, art\u2014are political and any form of dissent from the official creed is intolerable and must be forbidden. That would lead, and has led, to the death of free inquiry, because dissent, rebellion, and radical criticism are essential to the growth of knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the political virtues of private property is that it establishes a sphere of autonomy in which we are safe from the threat of physical violence. In that sphere of autonomy, we can say or not say, or do or not do, anything we like, so long as we don\u2019t initiate physical violence against others. Private property is the garage where we can form a band or invent the personal computer or paint protest signs. As private property disappears, not only do our economic liberties disappear, but so too do our political liberties.<\/span><\/p>\n

What is not forbidden \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, under pure collectivism no freedom at all would remain, and not only the freedom to peacefully assemble in protest against government activities. In a completely collectivist system, it\u2019s not a stretch to say that what isn\u2019t forbidden would in fact be mandatory.<\/span><\/p>\n

From California<\/a>,\u00a0which at least for now is a ways off from pure collectivism, comes an even-nuttier though still-scary scenario:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

A Southern California couple received a letter from Glendora city officials threatening to fine them $500 if they don\u2019t get their sun-scorched brown lawn green again, reports AP<\/span><\/a>. Which Laura Whitney and Michael Korte would gladly do, except for one thing: They could also be fined $500 if they water their lawn too much; they’re currently only watering twice a week.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thus, what is mandatory may also be forbidden. Don\u2019t forget, 1984 was 30 years ago.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Sanford Ikeda is an associate professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism<\/em>.<\/strong><\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
This article was originally published by The Foundation for Economic Education<\/a>.<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sanford Ikeda August 26, 2014 ****************************** The Daily Mail reports\u00a0that \u201cFrance’s Socialist government provoked outrage \u2026 by becoming the first in the world to ban protests against Israeli action in Palestine.\u201d The socialist interior minister justified the ban by citing the potential for violent clashes in Paris between opposing groups, which he deemed a \u201cthreat to public order.\u201d My object here is not to comment on any aspect of the conflict in the Middle East or on this ban, which…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[2210,805,3554,1281,2772,2431,711,1365,84,1692,59,900,899,1363,3555,25],"class_list":["post-3310","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-2210","tag-california","tag-central-planning","tag-collectivism","tag-dissent","tag-f-a-hayek","tag-fascism","tag-france","tag-freedom","tag-friedrich-hayek","tag-liberty","tag-sandy-ikeda","tag-sanford-ikeda","tag-socialism","tag-the-road-to-serfdom","tag-united-states"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3310","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3310"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3310\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3313,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3310\/revisions\/3313"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}