[image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom]
This week’s article really dives into the problems and dangers of socialism and central planning. I found it very interesting and some of their takes made me pause and ponder. Overall, the writer is arguing that socialism is just a mask for totalitarianism/communism/dictatorship and that central planning will inevitably create more problems than solve anything. The author really emphasizes that it is a slippery slope and that the dream of democratic socialism is unattainable and a gateway to oppression.
The article starts off by proposing the idea that only the competitive system is made to truly prevent oppression over men by other men. This is something I disagree with. I believe that having a truly competitive system in place promotes oppression because it is a competition. The first to win gets all the gold, right? I think that is something that has not been really addressed in this article, though he does admit that regulations (sometimes) are necessary, as long as they are only there to encourage and support competition. However, regulations are part of central planning and the types of regulations necessary to ensure that the competitive system is free from oppression and is truly just competitive instead of oppressive involves central planning. It is the government outlawing discrimination and ensuring that everybody has a fair shot at playing the game. Otherwise, it is the same dozen people who have won and thus have the means to continue to win. Competition also promotes cheating and underhanded methods. A great example of this is Edison and Tesla (or even Edison and Louis le prince). Edison was not the first to invent anything, he was just more ruthless and thus took credit from the men who actually were able to succeed at both the lightbulb and moving pictures. He specifically states that it is the competitive system that allows people the freedom of mobility, whether that is career, housing, or professing individual views. As I mentioned above, however, that is historically not accurate. During the Industrial Revolution, it was made quite clear that workers were not allowed to express any wish for change, whether that was job, wage, etc. The demolition of Unions shows that, eventually, a company simply does not need to care about the rights or opiniones of its workers, thus eliminating the freedom of mobility. Now, it could be argued that workers not happy with their conditions can simply find another job, however that ignores, one, the economic strain of quitting a job and either hoping to find another or even just moving. In addition, it also assumes that these companies, who are all in competition with each other, do not treat their employees similarly.
I also did not like how he linked individualism with Christianity. I think I mentioned this in another post but the second a theory or argument introduces a religion in its set up, I consider it a weak argument. Especially for a state that is supposed to be secular. If an author is going to bring religion into an argument, then the author must include all religions, otherwise the argument is biased and weak. Also did not like it when the author chose to say that it was in contrast to socialism.
I will say, I did like how he decided that the only compromise that could work between central planning and competition was planning for competition. I think that is a very good sentiment. However, I think that planning for competition and planning against competition are more closely aligned than what the article tried to sell because, sometimes, it is necessary to plan against competition. As the author mentioned, in terms of safe work environments and the protection of natural land (that doesn’t belong to the person ruining it) is to plan against competition because it is a true competitive system, all of that would be open and allowed to happen.
Overall, I found the article interesting but it was not anything that I haven’t already read for this class. The article made some good points, but unfortunately they were not well explored or were contradicted by the stronger argument it was trying to make. One last point that I would like to make is that people can say they are socialist without actually being socialist. It is so easy to start out with labelling yourself something that is more digestible before slowly transitioning to what you were all along. That was my main train of thought when he brought up Germany as a primary example. I did like the little pictures at the end though, thought they were very fun.