What History Has Taught Me About Socialism and Communism

I was called out on another blog to show the historical evidence backing up my low opinion of Socialism, and rather than respond there, I decided to give it some thought and post my reasoning here.

Socialism has been an intermittent part of the human experience for a long time. It has never lasted long in any society that has tried it, but it remains a popular system. Why?

Superficially, Socialism (and it's purest form, Communism) looks very attractive from a financial standpoint - certainly to those in the lower strata of society, especially poor societies. Essentially, everyone pitches in for a fair share. Since the poorest classes of any given society also tend to be the largest, democratic societies will always tend toward socialism. It makes sense, as people vote their interests. A colleague of mine, who is Chinese, pretty much agrees with this. He believes that communism is good for China, because before communism, he said the people had nothing. Note that he lives here in Capitalist America, however, so it's good for them, but not necessarily him.

You don't really have to dig to hard to see why socialism doesn't last, however. In order for it to work as advertised, you have to have a 100 percent buy-in. Everyone in the society has to play by the rules - there is just no room for people to do their own thing. If people were allowed to pursue their own dreams and ambitions rather than working towards the common good, problems would arise - inequity comes into the equation and you're back to square one.
So, how do you prevent this?

In theory, you have to concentrate power in the hands of government. All financial matters are controlled by government. All businesses are owned by the state. All work therefore is done in service to the state. The state then distributes the wealth created in an even manner to all participants.

However, in reality, you really can't. Here's why.

-Black markets will arise in even the most controlled economies, despite the wishes of the powers that be, and the punishments meted out for participating.

-The people in charge - and there always has to be people in charge, especially in these cases, to ensure distribution - have to be trustworthy. They have to have society's best interests at heart. They have to participate in the system too. To date, I don't believe that any socialist society has succeeded at finding these so-called "right people". Power corrupts. Power always corrupts. These people are guiding the society, so they're entitled to a little more of a share, right? They're important, so they need state protection, right? In order to protect them, they need housing away from the masses, right? It's a stressful job, so they need more leisure, right? And so on. Wow. We've just created a class system again - this time political, rather than financial. Whatever; you still get "haves" and "have-nots".

-Equal pay, but not equal work. There will always be an element of society that simply does not work. There are three main groups here: The incapable, the most sympathetic group (although some socialist societies preferred to remove, rather than support them); the criminal (there will always be a subset of any society that finds it easier to take what they want rather than work for it); and the plain lazy. As it becomes apparent that people are entitled to the same share regardless of the effort put in, this group expands as those who work begin to see that they don't benefit any more than those who do not.

-Individual liberty must be sacrificed upon the altar of the common good. Liberty and Socialism cannot coexist - at least, not for long. The needs of the individual must always yield to those of the state - otherwise, you'd get back to that horrid class system in no time. This is the most sinister aspect of the system for me - that I must subject my own personal dreams, rights and liberties to the whim of society at large. If I refuse, I may be imprisoned or executed. In no way will I be permitted to live in liberty within such a system. Nor can I leave. History bears this out. This is where the bodies start to pile up. If everyone who wanted to leave left, why, who would do the work necessary for the functioning of such a society? That's one reason why there is a lot of animosity towards America in the world. Our country is a shining example of what is possible when individuals are left alone to realize their potential. Our very existence is a threat to Socialism, because as long as there is an America, based upon our founding principles, people in Socialist states will always be able to see - to know - that the grass is greener on the other side. For this reason alone, Socialism will always fail as long as people can see that there is an alternative.

OK, enough of my simplistic opinions and observations. On to some examples of Socialism in history, in answer to Markadelphia's challenge:

The Plymouth Colony, 1620. Their socialist experiment almost wiped them out. Fail.
New Harmony, Indiana, 1825-29. Lasted four years before collapsing. Fail.
Brook Farm, 1841-44. Held out for three years. Fail.


"But wait!" I hear you say. "These were all small societies, with limited access to resources. Surely there are examples of larger societies with more resources that lasted much longer!"

Yes, there are. I believe that large societies, with a wealthier starting point in terms of resources and manpower, can (but not always) tolerate the drain of Socialism for longer periods. But not indefinitely. The current record holder is the Soviet Union - a huge state, we can all agree, with vast tracts of land, plenty of mineral wealth and a large population to exploit.

They lasted sixty-nine years.

Other examples include Tunisia (less than ten years), Tanzania (gave up after 20 years or so in the face of famines and starvation - but hey, they got the literacy rates up!), Grenada (four years - guess they just couldn't get along).
There's a list here of many more if you're interested. Note the list of former states is much larger than current.
And who could forget Nazi Germany. Twelve years. Yes, it was a socialist state.

A feature common to these but maybe not readily obvious until I included Nazi Germany is the huge body count. You never get 100% participation in these societies, as I stated. Well, that is just an obstacle to be overcome for the true believers. They see no disconnect at all in killing millions of people in order to make life better.

So, my opinions, my observations and the historical record show me that Socialism as a system of government is doomed to fail every single time, with disastrous and often lethal results for its participants. YMMV, especially if your name is Markadelphia.