Stop Attacking Socialists
On how to move forward in championing capitalism.
The pro-capitalists have been wasting their time attacking the socialists. The disasters of collectivism and communism have made a lasting impression on the (relatively) free world since World War II, discouraging it from pursuing that path again. Yet despite socialism’s unpopularity, we are witnessing today the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America. Why is this happening?
In Ayn Rand’s essay, “The Anatomy of Compromise,” she discusses the role of principles in determining the direction of a society and the rules by which principles function in different scenarios.
1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
Many followers of Rand’s philosophy have made it one of their focal points to explicitly and clearly define the differences between capitalism and socialism, keeping the principles of capitalism undiluted and uncompromising. However, Rand also offers a qualification before listing her rules that deserves no less attention: “The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.”
Here is an additional layer to this subject: by concentrating its attacks against the socialists, the pro-capitalism camp has implicitly collaborated with the so-called moderates who support the mixed economy system, conceding indirectly to its irrational principles, which has consequently strengthened the socialists.
Let me break this down.
Rand’s rules discuss scenarios of two competing men or groups. But our system offers three competing systems, not two; these are: capitalism, the mixed economy, and socialism. Bear in mind that today’s system is a mixed economy, not socialism. Because we are dealing with three competing ideas, the capitalist who attacks socialists, yet leaves the “moderates” alone, necessarily implies that the current system is the system that he supports. At best, the implication is that he is on the same page as the “moderates;” at worst, the implication is that the current system is capitalism. The latter implication is disastrous for capitalism and undermines all arguments against the socialists.
Consider the neutral who listens to a debate between a capitalist and a socialist. He may agree with all the practical refutations of socialism. He may even endorse some of the moral arguments in favor of capitalism. But recall that he does not live under socialism. The anti-socialist arguments are not directly relevant to his life, as the hardships of the mixed economy are. If the pro-capitalism debater does not “clearly and openly” define the opposite principles of capitalism and the current system, the neutral will inevitably feel that there is something remiss, disingenuous, and unreliable about the capitalist position. If capitalism is so good, why does he have to go through the economic troubles of the day? Even if on some level he understands that capitalism and the current system are not one and the same, as long as this is not openly defined and made explicit, he will gradually equate the socialist arguments against the mixed economy as problems emblematic of “capitalism.”
And since we live in a mixed economy, the capitalist is context-dropping when he concentrates all of his efforts against socialism, when today’s real problems emanate from today’s system—a system with its own rules, its own method, and even, to a degree, its own principles (or more accurately, its own anti-principles; more on this anon). In other words, the proponents of capitalism undermine their own ideal by not clearly and openly distinguishing it from the non-ideal of the mixed economy.
Ironically, one ends up indirectly collaborating with the socialists by attacking only them, because this alludes to collaboration with the “moderates,” who by virtue of their mixed views hold socialist premises.
* * *
How then should we approach this subject? What is the effective method to advocate for capitalism? The first step is to understand the context of one’s audience, and how it relates to the mixed economy.
Rand begins the essay mentioned above with the following words:
A major symptom of a man’s—or a culture’s—intellectual and moral disintegration is the shrinking of vision and goals to the concrete-bound range of the immediate moment. This means: the progressive disappearance of abstractions from a man’s mental processes or from a society’s concerns. The manifestation of a disintegrating consciousness is the inability to think and act in terms of principles.
The result is a culture that “haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values, selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment.”
I find it interesting that Rand starts this essay by lamenting the disappearance of principles and then goes on to dissect the rules of opposing principles. If principles are absent, this surely complicates the issue. For example, the only principle that pragmatism follows is the dogmatic rejection of principles. Those who incorporate pragmatism in their mental processes shut down their cognitive ability to think in principles. However, this does not mean that implicitly they do not hold moral premises, thereby implying moral goals. Like a person driving without a map or knowledge of the way, they may get lost, forgetting what their destination was to begin with, but slowly, across decades of aimless driving, progress is made in incremental steps toward the destination they hold implicitly (altruism, and hence collectivism, and hence socialism).
This, I believe, is the mechanism with which our mixed economy is gradually shifting toward socialism, while also explaining why the process is taking so long.
What is important for our purpose is to grasp the fact that the mixed economy is not some undefined, temporary state between two opposing poles. The mixed economy has identity, with its own academic justifications, based on its own (anti-)philosophic foundations.
The modern economists, the so-called moderates, the “libertarians,” the “conservatives,” and the “liberals” who attack socialism do not do so for the right reasons. All of them, to a lesser or greater extent, support the current system or oppose capitalism with the same fervor (or greater fervor) that they oppose socialism. For them, the “absolutism” of socialism is just as bad or ineffective as the “absolutism” of capitalism. These voices are just as damaging for the cause of capitalism as the socialist voices are; or worse, since they are the dominant forces in our culture that effectively conceal and distort capitalism by diluting its essence via their mixed, unprincipled messaging.
The greatest obstacle for anyone promoting laissez-faire capitalism today is not socialism or rival principles per se, but the fact that our culture rejects principles by default. Socialism can be understood or propagated via concrete-bound sound bites that offer some “spurious advantage of the moment,” such as “Tax the rich” or “Feed the poor.” Similarly, the mixed economy is defended through disintegrated, narrow, out-of-context, smug messages of “practicality,” which deliberately evade principles. By contrast, capitalism cannot be championed on concrete-bound foundations. Capitalism requires minds that are capable of abstract integrations, minds that can think in principles, minds that can evaluate the concretes via principles.
A principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it.
The mixed economy is philosophically dependent on an anti-principled mentality. The capitalist cannot expect to win over the hearts and minds of a generation whose mind is incapable of grasping principles (and whose heart is auto-tuned against egoism, which requires the envisioning of long-range goals). Capitalism rests on healthy minds that have the capacity to conceptualize; namely, organize large numbers of concretes via graspable abstractions. A mind reduced to the perceptual level cannot understand how capitalism works, what it is, and how it will benefit one’s particular life. If one cannot “think and act in terms of principles,” which is a basic requirement for devising long range goals with the rational conviction of achieving values in reality, he will not grasp the merits of capitalism.
If I were given the task to summarize the “action manual” for those who wish to promote liberty and capitalism, I would summarize it in three steps.
Step 1:
There are no shortcuts. One cannot advocate “more effectively” for capitalism without prior intellectual work to establish the mental conditions for desiring capitalism.
Step 2:
The advocacy for capitalism begins with principles. One must teach and demonstrate the efficacy of principles via philosophy. It is modern philosophy that destroyed the conceptual level of man’s consciousness and it will take a rational philosophy to rebuild it.
Step 3:
The archenemies of capitalism in today’s climate are the “moderates.” The socialists can win only by default. The champion of capitalism must account for the three-item menu—socialism, the mixed economy, and capitalism—and remember that it is our mixed system that needs to be intellectually refuted. Those who attack socialism without principles must be seriously challenged and exposed for their contradictions. These middle-ground, concrete-bound, propagators-by-consensus gatekeepers are not on “our side.” A sound strategy would concentrate its efforts against them!
☞
If you enjoyed this piece, hit the like button and share. It helps spreading the message. Mr Examiner is urging you to do it!