Socialists have tried to form social relationships that realize equality among people as a reaction to the marginalization of people. At the top of the group rose Karl Marx. Marx believed in a delegative form of democracy. He called upon the working class to unite and decide their fate for themselves. He was absolutely correct in this. On the other hand, Marx argued that the antagonism between workers and the owners of the means of production can be solved only by the socialist revolution. He was very wrong here. Marx should strive to form and strengthen the unions which could fight for the rights of workers through negotiations with capitalists. One measure that could significantly help the society is to shorten work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate. Then the market would align the supply and demand of labour and the income level to acceptable ranges for both workers and capitalists. This could solve the problem and bring prosperity to society.
The violent seizure of power is inconvenient because it requires a high degree of destructiveness. Besides, in order to organize, implement, and ensure social revolution, a new leadership is generally autocratic, and therefore extends the alienation in society with all the unfavourable phenomena. Lenin used Marx's philosophy to perform the socialist revolution but he completely removed Marx's notion of equality of people claiming that workers have not developed enough knowledge and consciousness, and therefore they must be guided. Thus, blabbers who "knew" how society should develop joined the social scene. Referring to Marx, these blabbers largely represented their own interests. Under the influence of Lenin, all socialist states typically had the same presidents over the span of a lifetime that imposed their wills upon the people more than kings could. Thus, socialism has formed a very inefficient and unhealthy economy that destroyed socialism and the left political and economic orientation.
Lenin took direct management over the society naming it "the dictatorship of the proletariat". His ideology was acceptable for the society as it proclaimed the equality, solidarity, "brotherhood and unity" among people. However, equality was never established and unity in reality did not allow an option that would differ from the ruling one. The delegative form of democracy was completely destroyed. Delegates alienated themselves from society and no longer transfer the will of the people to the centre, but convey the will of the centre to the people supported by the repressive state apparatus. Such a system did not enable the society to freely decide and solidified the power of autocracy. In this way, the dictatorship system gets renewed in the society where the person as an individual becomes impotent. Then all the inconvenient phenomena of the alienated autocratic social emerge order.
Revolution cannot bring good results because no violence can ever bring good. In addition, only a majority of hungry people could raise a revolution and hungry people in the west barely exist. Yet even today, many social scientists naively expect a revolution that will change the Western world. It seems to me that liberal democracy supports Marxism because it directs political competitors to the wrong path.
The socialist form of production understands social ownership of the means of production. Since the society has not found a peaceful way of transforming private into social ownership of the means of production, it has been forcedly taking away the private ownership, which makes the private capital owners deeply dissatisfied. Such an act represents the negation of the differences in the productive power of workers' past labour, which would also have to consistently require the negation of the differences in the productive power of the current and future labour of workers. Such an attitude supposes that all workers are equally productive and deserve, therefore, equal share in the distribution of the product of mutual work performance. Such distribution system lacks the income-based work stimulation, so that the operation result is below expectation.
Furthermore, the socialist form of production would need to understand a democratic plan and organization of production and distribution. A democratic planned economy needs to generate the products in a quantity and of a quality precisely as needed individually and collectively by members of the society. The idea of a planned economy is correct, but only if it is democratically formed because only then can it follow the needs of people. In the past, a democratic planned economy could not have been successfully implemented because computer technology that can quickly register the needs of all the people did not exist. Since society has not acquired the knowledge and, consequently, the possibility of forming democratic planned economies, it has created an authoritative planned economy. In such a system, the political power bodies assume the role of planners and organizers of the production and distribution in the name of the society.
A centralized form of production planning may successfully follow the basic interests of an undeveloped society, such as food, housing, education, health care, culture or sports, as such needs may be successfully envisaged. In the beginning, the socialist system brings great prosperity to the society because, as a reaction to repressive exploitation systems, a strong enthusiasm emerges that inspires the people in their building of a better future. In such a system, the authorities introduce a unique production organization that may achieve full employment of workers, a satisfactory productivity, a stable business activity, and satisfaction of the basic social needs. The people get free education, social and health protection, and income sufficient to meet all their basic natural needs. The initial working enthusiasm contributes to a significant rise in the living standard. The people are satisfied and the rate of crime is low.
However, as time passes, enthusiasm in the society falls and big problems emerge. The planned economy determined from one centre could neither register nor plan the special needs of the society members. An economy not having an objective overview of the social needs cannot make a successful work programme. In such a system the consumer has no possibility of election of the consumption and, therefore, the economic system exerts violence over the consumers.
The planned economy is not subject to the market criterion of the cost of labour, and employs all workers, while at the same time protecting their work posts as a reaction to merciless exploitation systems. The protected work posts create a closed structure that obstructs the production process. The work loses creativity and becomes monotonous and non-stimulating in productive terms. Protected workers are privileged and can, therefore, inflict inconveniences to other members of the community in the form of insufficient work engagement when it is necessary to other community members. The system has developed a very strong political responsibility in order to protect itself; however, it has not managed to create a successful mechanism of economic responsibility. Simply, the system could not send each insufficiently engaged worker to prison, and could not offer a real economic stimulation. Moreover, workers without any right to decision-making do not accept social ownership as their own, and thus behave irresponsibly toward the same.
That should all be thanks to Karl Marx who wrongly directed the Left political orientation. By studying the "widest" law of movements in society through dialectical and historical materialism, Marx concluded that the free market should be abolished because of the exploitation of workers. This is probably the biggest mistake in the intellectual history of mankind. This error has prevented the development of society. By proposing the abolition of the market, Marx removed the scale that enables the effective performance of the economy. By abolishing the market, Marx abolished the categories that define the productive producers, quality of goods, demand, objective price and earnings. He actually beheaded the economy. Marx was aware of it and so he offered a substitute for the market economy with a planned economy based on people's consciousness. The consciousness to which Marx called upon is an idealized construction that cannot be explicitly defined and so everyone can interpret it as they wish. Even a murderer could find an excuse in his conscience for the crimes he commits. A system cannot be based on idealized values. Idealism is even contrary to Marx's materialist philosophy.
Marx did not see that the abolition of the market economy not only abolishes the exploitation of workers but also the only possible basis for the establishment of a healthy economy. The problem of the market economy is not too much market, but in fact, not enough, because the labour market is completely undeveloped. The developed work market requires free access for each worker to every public workplace at any time. It is possible to realize only in public companies in the manner that at every workplace a worker who offers the highest productivity, greatest personal responsibility, and the lowest price for current work should be hired. Only then would people be truly equal, only then would we have socialism.
Taking into account that this idea has only just begun forming, socialism never stood a chance. An authoritative planned economy tries to overcome all such deficiencies by forming an ideological, working and humanitarian consciousness; however, this is non-achievable with the bureaucratic, authoritative forces that coordinate the activity and distribution. On its route to achieving major benefits, the autocratic power aspires to control all relations in society, thus not differentiating muck from extreme dictatorial regimes. Such control oppresses the society and is, therefore, doomed to failure, as have all dictatorships failed. Regardless of the initial success, the authoritative planned economy is alienated, non-productive, lacking perspective and is thus, potentially destructive, which is also visible in the example of the breakdown of the so-called "real socialism" in the world. Consequently today’s socialism base on its results is also very close to feudalism and slavery.
Copyright protected at Consumer and Corporate Affairs
November 13, 2013