Some time ago, a reader named Vanessa left an emphatic response to the post “Dick and Jane Watch Democracy Turn into Communism” to the effect that I was wrong to associate communism with socialism.  A friend of mine, while acknowledging the pragmatic accuracy of my method, indicated that she raised this valid point:

Communism ≠ Socialism

On the books, communism and socialism are widely divergent.  Under communism, the individual receives from the government; whereas under socialism, the government receives from the individual.  Under communism, enterprise is owned and administrated by the government; whereas under socialism, enterprise is owned and operated in the private sector.

There is an argument among the self-styled literati that no country has actually correctly practiced communism and so any discussion of communism using real-world examples is necessarily in error.  I’d like to throw out that argument and suggest that communism be defined as the policy that communist countries practice, not what they claim that they are striving for.

We’ve all been lied to by politicians—(“Read my lips: no new taxes;” “There is no sex in the Oval Office;” “U.S. out of Afghanistan.”)—and it takes no great stretch of imagination to consider that Marx et al. were feeding lies to the public in order to harness their support.  It is more probable than not that their published doctrine was a pretext.  Yes, a lot of people believe that what I call  smoke and mirrors is the true core of communism, but coincidentally, this group consists chiefly of liberal poly-sci majors and serfs.  Hmm…  (Prove me wrong.)

The alternative to my smoke-and-mirrors assertion is accepting that communism is in fact a figment, never to exist in the real world, that even the communist experts, wielding the power of autocrats, were unable to implement it correctly.

Communism ≈ Socialism

If I may now expound upon my position that socialism and communism are in fact closely related, let us consider a pragmatic definition of socialism.

Have we ever seen a socialist government (or any government) that did not operate business?  In our nation, we’ve got a delivery service (USPS), protective forces (police, military), lending entities (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), educational/indoctrinational services (public school), etc.  Distinctions between communism and non-communism blur.

Need a more extreme example?  Not long ago, the idea of nationalizing the entire healthcare industry was in question (and likely shall be again).  Going ahead with that would give the government a monopoly on something that used to be a private industry.

• Further, consider the extent and purpose to which our federal government regulates private industry (health care, food, pharmaceuticals, etc.).
• Further, consider that the notion of tax withholdings is theoretically dissimilar from communist practice (because we say so) but in practice is in keeping with the principle that the government holds the fruits of every man’s labour and then metes it back out as it sees fit.
• Führer, consider that the effect of graduated taxes is a step which is common to both socialism and communism, to wit: the amount a person works or produces is disassociated from his/her gains.  (We’re watching the results of this right now: fewer jobs, rising costs, gold bricking.)

The fact is that the real-world examples of socialism (and social democracy, if you can draw a distinction) don’t stay out of communism’s playground.  Rather, an evolutionary continuum appears, and while we can point out an “absolute” difference between air-breathers and water-breathers, we observe an undisputable evolutionary chain between them.

While I do not—and never did—say that socialism and communism were the same thing, I stand by my assertion that the one can engender the other.  Indeed, unless the economy totally tanks before that final evolution takes place, I assert that socialism will lead to communism.  Here’s why…

Socialism is all about compassion

Matt raised a question earlier: can anyone think of any society in history that progressed to [socialism] and then turned back?  (I adapted his question for Vanessa’s sake.)

Socialism in practice is not about helping others; it’s about compelling others to help you.  I’ve said it before: if it were about helping others, we would just help out.  We wouldn’t legislate it, requiring ourselves to be helpful (meanwhile creating more government work which doesn’t produce value).  If socialism is ever the voice of the people, then it’s because there are more would-be-takers than would-be-givers in a population.  And when a society tips that balance, the genuinely good-at-heart will not take the vote again.  Instead they will be devoured.

Beau mot:

In closing, I’ll leave you with a line from Aristotle, which aforementioned friend, Luther, left with me: “Democracy is a government run by a demagogue.”

(demagogue: n. one who rises to power by playing on the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.)